randy_byers: (2009-05-10)
"But nothing is more disruptive to domestic order than an unattached heterosexual male." (A.O. Scott in a review of the film The Kids Are All Right)

I haven't dug too deeply into the story of Elliott Rodger and his misogynist beliefs and recent killing spree, because I find it all too distressing. However, I've seen enough to know that Rodgers was a virgin and a frequenter of internet forums dedicated to the right of men to be sexually serviced by women. I had no idea such sites existed, although, as nauseating as the views expressed are, I guess it doesn't really surprise me. The thing is, none of the men I know ever expresses these kinds of ideas, which is no doubt a reflection both of my social circle and of the unacceptability of such views in polite company.

The closest I've ever come to someone who thinks like that was a guy I knew who was still a virgin in his late 30s and who may still be a virgin, for all I know. I lost contact with him a decade or so ago. He was a good looking guy and fairly gregarious, but he did have some emotional problems, including a terrible temper and deep self-esteem issues. It's not completely clear to me why he was still a virgin, but he himself would say it was because he didn't want sex without love and had been unable to find the love he needed in order to agree to sex. During the period I knew him he *almost* had sex with a mutual friend of ours one night after a party when she drove him home and they started making out in her car and one thing almost led to the next. However, even in that drunken, excited state he was able to stop himself, and that was possibly for the best, all things considered. There was another woman with whom he became good friends and with whom he fell in love, but although she went out with him a few times, mostly because she needed someone to talk to about her own emotional struggles, she never reciprocated the love and so there it ended.

This guy and I got into one argument about feminism that I recall, in which he took the position that women have all the power in society. It didn't matter to him that women make less money then men, have far fewer positions of power in government and corporate hierarchies than men, are subject to more physical abuse and rape than men, have a recent history of not being able to own property or vote, etc, etc. To his mind women can withhold love and sex from men, and therefore they have all the power. The end. Our understandings of what social power is were so alien to each other that it was impossible to even have much of a conversation about it, so we exchanged views rather heatedly and then moved on to other topics. Probably he didn't bring up his beliefs much because in our social circle his beliefs were, shall we say, not widely shared. I found them completely bizarre, in fact, but I could see how they grew out of his personal sense of powerlessness to get what he longed for in terms of a romantic relationship.

Still, while he wasn't a violent person and didn't express any hatred of women, I was appalled at the sense of victimhood in his beliefs. I guess that's the part I have a hard time understanding in all this. I'm not actually all that different from him in my attitudes toward sex and love, although I was willing to try sex without love a couple of times before I decided it wasn't for me. Probably because I'm less emotionally troubled than he, I've also had a chance to get into sexual relationships with a few more or less mutually-affectionate women, although none of them lasted very long. But for most of my life I've gone without a sexual partner because what I've really been looking for is love (if not, as some have accused, adoration) and have created all kinds of barriers around the process due to any number of fears and confusions and hypersensitivities, not to mention my basic passivity and probably deep down an anxious reluctance to be subsumed in another. The thing I don't understand, however, is how anyone can be in that position and think the difficulties are caused by women or by anyone but themselves. Is it just that I'm such a control freak that I always believe that the things that are or are not happening to me are my own fault? Maybe so. I've certainly been rebuffed by women who weren't interested in me despite my best efforts to interest them, and I guess I've considered that my failure rather than the fault of the women. I've tended to see myself as a failure at love rather than to see women as a powerful cabal who are denying me my needs and rights. I guess I'd rather feel like a failure than feel like a victim.

Then again, I'm not an alpha male by any stretch of the imagination and have never aspired to be one. I lack aggressiveness and gumption, and I probably embrace failure all too easily. Even my emotional confusion is more or less passive and reserved. We all flounder in our own ways, I suppose, and my floundering has been certainly less destructive and perhaps slightly less self-defeating than some, but that's pretty much from sheer chance, not from virtue. I'm no evangelist, so it's not like I'm not going to advocate that lonely men should embrace a sense of failure over a sense of victimhood. I'm wandering without purpose yet again, for whatever it might be worth. Two cents, perhaps?
randy_byers: (2010-08-15)
I can't resist the subject-line, because it makes me think of the Mel Brooks parody of Corflu, but that's not really what this is about.

I generally had a terrific time at E Corflu Vitus. I saw lots of friends, got plenty of egoboo, ate good food, and felt the pulse of fandom hot beneath my finger. Yet my experience was colored throughout by a fair amount of anxiety. This is not exactly unusual for me at a Corflu. Typically I experience a slightly desperate feeling of not being able to give everybody the attention they deserve. This time it seemed stronger, more like performance anxiety, and more challenging to my sense of self-worth. Which is very strange to me, because as I said before, I got a lot of love from my friends, and yet somehow -- sometimes -- I was turning it into a feeling of loneliness and unworthiness.

My only theory -- going with that sense of performance anxiety -- is that I was feeling that I needed to be on at all moments. It was like being on stage 24/7. There was a certain manic quality to the fun, and I think I must have been feeling brittle. I remember that in the last couple of days before the convention, I wasn't sure I was ready for the level of energy you find at a Corflu. I wasn't sure I was up for it.

Well, I don't want to make too much of it. It was only one thread in the fabric. But it has lingered in the days since, so there's something going on there. It reminds me of the mixed sense of towering elation and creeping uncertainty of my earliest conventions, and I thought I'd left that uncertainty far behind as my network of friends expanded. It would be a pity if it resurfaced at this late date, especially if it's because the network has actually gotten too big for my introverted self.
randy_byers: (Default)


I suddenly realized this morning that I *do* have a camera. It's a web camera that I bought to use with Skype (one of Sharee's ideas). It's obviously not very good, and the lighting here in my room is atrocious, but it gives you an idea of the latest State of the Hair. This morning I used the 1/8 inch (3mm) fitting on the clipper. The beard is now longer than the hair.

I think I'll stick with this for a while, now that I'm getting the hang of the clipper. My nephew was in total shock when he first saw me last weekend. He'd never seen me with hair in his entire life. My brother said, "You look just like me!"
randy_byers: (2009-05-10)
One thing I had intended to write about in a longer piece about how it's better to be lonely than to be humbled by love is how I experience loneliness. I'm losing part of the context here, because the consideration of loneliness was going to follow a description of my relationship history, part of the point of which was to establish that I've been single a lot more of my life than I've been in a relationship. Being single is the default condition for me, and because of that I've experienced a lot of loneliness in all its varieties.

There's a line in John Kessel's Good News from Outer Space that has always stuck with me, though I've never looked it up again in the couple of decades since I read the book, so who knows how much the line has been rewritten in my head. It was something to the effect that loneliness is the inability to say the things that are most important to you. Loneliness is a kind of muteness, which I always thought explained very well that sense of being lonely in a crowd. It's not about absence of people, in other words, it's about an absence of someone who wants to hear your story.

Well, here I am telling my story. Which is to say that I think loneliness has been perhaps the driving force in my interest in writing. It may also explain why I ended up gravitating to fanzines and online fora, where my writing could get a more immediate, personal response. Beyond that, however, it's also true that in a lot of ways I prefer writing to other forms of communication. I prefer e-mail to the telephone, for example. I like the distance -- perhaps even the aloofness -- allowed by writing. So it isn't just that I'm driven by loneliness to write, but that I cultivate the loneliness. At which point it becomes less a loneliness -- a lack, a wanting -- and more a solitude -- something desired. I've always enjoyed my solitude and communing with myself. Maybe too much so, I don't know. It's certainly part of the equation of why I've spent more of my life single than in a relationship.
randy_byers: (blonde venus)
I had intended to write a long, funny, soulful meditation on the subject of my "stubborn inability to form new romantic relationships," but after further contemplation I have concluded that it boils down to a motto from Milton: "It's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." Yes, it's mere pride. It's better to be lonely than to be humbled by love. Except that approximately every seven years I test the waters to see if it's still true.

Then again, maybe it's really just a deadly combination of passivity and finickiness.
randy_byers: (pig alley)
At the pubmeet last Sunday, [livejournal.com profile] jackwilliambell at one point exclaimed, "What is it with you and 1920? You only read science fiction from the Twenties, and you only watch movies from the Twenties!"

I didn't have an answer for him at the time, but thanks to the spirit of the escalator I have one now: Because the past is another country, and I'm interested in foreign cultures.

This is for sure why I have given up on new SF and only read old stuff. The new stuff started to seem too familiar, too ordinary, too tired, as though I'd seen it all before. (I have the same feeling about modern rock music.) Going back to pre-Amazing SF took me back far enough that it seems strange, alien, unexpected, even when I can see the roots of the modern stuff in it (another source of the fascination, for sure). The concepts are different, the language is different, the perspective is different. Thus it seems fresh and unencumbered with stale debates. It challenged my preconceptions in ways that modern SF had stopped doing.

Likewise with silent film: I can see how it's connected to what came after, but the language and visual grammar of silent film is significantly different than that of sound film. This is why so many people bounce off of silent film -- the acting styles seem unnatural, the frame rate is unnatural, the way scenes are staged is static, the camera angles and set-ups don't change in the manner we expect. You have to learn how to understand the films on their own terms. It's like being in a foreign culture where the few words and gestures you understand only get you so far.

Mind you, it's an exaggeration to say I only watch old movies. I'm much more interested in modern film than I am in modern science fiction these days. It's also true that another reason I gave up on modern science fiction is that I was reading fewer and fewer novels of any genre, and it feels as though you have to read a lot to keep up with what's happening in the SF field. I just wasn't keeping up. With film I don't care as much about whether I'm keeping up or not, because I don't expect to be knowledgeable about film and don't really hang out with other people who are knowledgeable. (My few attempts to participate in online film discussions generally run aground on my lack of knowledge and the fact that I've seen few films relative to other film fanatics.)

It's not that I think that the science fiction and films of an earlier era are better than what is produced today -- far from it. But they are different, and I find the differences fascinating. At least I haven't given science fiction up for mysteries and crime novels!
randy_byers: (2009-05-10)
Ta-Nehisi Coates has been wrestling with Ross Douthat's NYTimes column about Sarah Palin, meritocracy, and democracy. His most recent post on the topic, "The Importance of Being Ivy League", riffs on Douthat's implication that Obama's Ivy League law degree makes him part of the elite, whereas Palin's homely college experience makes her just plain folk. Somewhere in the comments somebody pointed out that "Ivy League" is a misleading phrase for referring to elite schools, and they mention Reed College, MIT, CalTech, Berkeley, Michigan, and Duke as non-Ivy-League schools that would qualify. That made me think about how I had actually applied to some of those elite schools.

The few, the proud )

Profile

randy_byers: (Default)
randy_byers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 7th, 2025 10:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios