girlcrushing

Music: Wire: Chairs Missing Because the New York Times is apparently the measure of all things valuable in the popular imaginary, the story that they ran last week, "She's So Cool, So Smart, So Beautiful: Must Be a Girl Crush" (story requires membership), has inspired much discussion on television programs and local newspapers across the country. For example, this morning the Today show devoted a lengthy segment to the topic (Matt Lauer's annoying, "but it never turns sexual?" was a irritating display of masculine reinscription).

"Girl Crush," the emerging, white 20-something rationalization for homoerotic desire, is catching-on in the popular media as a polite and "guilt-free" way for young and middle-aged women to talk about their infatuations with other women. It is, basically, one of the more insidious forms of homophobic discourse to date. The NYT story has already been lambasted for its binarism (among other things), but I cannot help myself this morning: the "girl crush" is merely a displacement for a fundamental bisexuality common to most of us to greater or lesser degrees. What is so curious about the write up is the way in which those of us born with cocks are portrayed:

[The girl crush] is not a new phenomenon. Women, especially young women, have always had such feelings of adoration for each other. Social scientists suspect such emotions are part of women's nature, feelings that evolution may have favored because they helped women bond with one another and work cooperatively. What's new is the current willingness to express their ardor frankly.

Apparently the writer is serious; not that men ever had feelings of adoration or worship for each other. No sir. We never get nervous when we meet someone we admire that has a dick. Nope. All that stuff about Ancient Greek culture: poppycock! History is bunk.

As for men, to the extent they may feel such emotions for each other [Josh-lation: "provided they are not fags"], Dr. Caplan [a Harvard sociologist], Dr. Caplan said they are less likely than women to express them. They are not reared to show their emotions. "A man talking about emotions about another man? Everybody's homophobic feelings are elicited by that, and that's because men aren't supposed to talk about feelings at all," Dr. Caplan said.

All of this is in fact true: boys don't cry, after all. But it is curious that Caplan seems to rule out any possibility of the "man crush" (or the way in which the cultural colonizes the biological, like a parasite). All she needs to do is watch how certain boys' eyes glaze over when they talk about a favorite coach or ball player (duh!). Or she could talk to the legions of young men who flock to "rock and roll" concerts and ask them what they think about the lead singer. Or she could watch Almost Famous . . . or My Bodyguard or even fucking Twins for Christ sake. Dr. Caplan is obviously on "auto-pilot" here, because what we know is supposed to be the case and what actually happens are very different. Oh, and, of course, she's never spent any time in a European city observing men with each other.

Nevertheless, it's easy to dismiss this kind of reporting out of hand, were it not for what I think is an even more damaging "scientific fact" that is discussed in the story:

Dr. [Helen] Fisher, author of Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Love, said girl crushes are as natural as any other kind of love. But they are romantic without being sexual. Love and lust are distinct urges, Dr. Fisher said. This was one of the findings she and colleagues from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the State University at Stony Brook made when they analyzed the brain scans of people 18-26 years old who were experiencing new love. Love and lust, it turned out, could be mapped to several different parts of the brain. "The brain system for romantic love is associated with intense energy, focuses energy, obsessive things—a host of characteristics that you can feel not just toward your mating sweetheart," Dr. Fisher said, adding that "there's every reason to think that girls can fall in love with other girls without feeling sexual towards them, without the intention to marry them"

Oh dear: we're thrown back to the decade of the brain (why Caplin is not talking about genetic codes instead is a mystery). As a rhetorician, it's somewhat amusing to see all the problems with the assumptions made here (how was "lust" operationalized? how do you code, exactly, "red is loud like a trumpet?"). Anyhoo, apparently human beings are desiring machines with many different tracks that don't cross because we're neurologically wired to experience them separately. Huh. So my falling in love with my sweetie has nothing to do with my wanting to have sex? Huh. Gee, and all this time I thought these feelings were somehow related . . . I guess the Symbolic has tricked me . . . and millions of lovers (gay, straight, and everything inbetween) everywhere . . . .

The Girl Crush: just another, Harvard-sanctioned way to say, "but I'm not gay . . . ."