Yes, indeed, I am so way overdue for some comments on the death of Michael Jackson. And if you know me and follow my status updates on Facebook or listen to me braying loudly after a few too many Long Island Iced Teas, you would know that I do have quite a number of comments to make.
I have a draft in the works of something longer and more barbed (now, now). I'll get to that . . . eventually.
But I had an encounter today with a friend that got me thinking about Michael Jackson in a completely different way than I have over the last (please, god, when will it end?) two weeks of national and international mourning.
My mental trajectory so far has been along these lines: Overindulged pop star, psychological mess, alleged child molester, inadvertent social activist, superstar, drug-addled parent, and expert media and image finesser--which, frankly, is a lot more thoughtfulness than I've gleaned from 24/7 TV coverage on CNN, HLN, and MSNBC.
Today, however, I had what I think can best be called a paradigm shift. I was talking with a friend of mine, Rocky, about the whole MJ hullabaloo. Sort of a "where were you when the King of Pop's lights went out, and how did the people around you (over)react?" if you will.
We got onto the topic of what the story of Michael Jackson says about American life. "Not anything good," laughed Rocky. "Money can't buy happiness," I added, "nor necessarily good plastic surgery."
Rocky, who identifies as transgendered, seeing himself more as a woman in a man's body, chuckled over this statement, but then added, very subtly, "You know, I sympathize with Michael Jackson to some degree. I empathize with him in many ways, it's just that . . . ."
"He was so out there," I offered.
"Mm-hmm."
We moved onto other points, grabbed our coffees, and got back to work.
But later in the afternoon that term "empathy" kept needling my consciousness. Empathy. Why would someone like my friend Rocky feel empathy for Michael J--?
Oh. My. Goodness.
What if the way to understand Michael Jackson, at least in part, is to view him as a transgendered person, a woman ensnared in a man's body? What if all the surgeries, the hair, the light, feminine voice (something that he didn't have as a child), the makeup, the garb, the persona--what if all of this was an attempt by Michael Jackson to reconcile his true female self inside the shell of his maleness? And to attempt to do so in full public glare?
This has kind of blown my mind, to say the least, and caused me to feel a lot more sympathetic to MJ than I had previously. Despite Michael Jackson's increasingly female persona over the years, despite (now) it being so obvious, it just never occurred to me to think of Michael Jackson as anything other than weird or freakish. It never occurred to me to think of his behavior or appearance in terms of transgenderism or transsexuality. Yet, in many ways, at least on the surface, it makes some sense to do so now.
This isn't something Rocky told me--in fact, savvy, intelligent person that he is (and I continue to say he because he presents as a man in daily life), he led me up to it by being who is he is, dropping a couple of subtle hints, and letting me figure out the rest on my own. I'm grateful to him for that; I am happy to know him, at least in the little ways that I do.
I don't think transgenderism is an easy concept for a lot of gay men, myself included. Oh, Logo may have a TV program on transgenderism and transsexuality every other hour, but talk directly with a lot of gay men and most will claim not to get it and to in fact have some issues with it, even some hostility toward it.
I would have included myself in that group up to even a couple of years ago, prior to knowing Rocky. I wasn't comfortable with the concept (as if I needed it to be all about me!), in part because I think as a gay man, at least a gay man of a certain age, you grow up having to defend yourself from accusations that you really are a woman or want to be a woman or woman-like. You're not even feminine--you're effeminate--and worthy of scorn for not being a "real" man. (By the way, what this says about society's view of women I'll leave to your own judgment.)
It's hard not to internalize this and some of us react by becoming more stereotypically masculine, while others react by becoming more stereotypically feminine. To each his own.
But taking on the feminine doesn't get you a lot of respect in the gay community these days because it is viewed as very old school and self-loathing. For years we've told ourselves we don't have to be "sissies" anymore, we're real men, and we're worthy of equal rights under the law. But we've often done this by conforming to certain ideals or expectations, at the exclusion of other types of gayness or sexual/gender expression. On the one hand, wouldn't we all like to fuck everything that moves? On the other, wouldn't we all like to get married and have children just like our heterosexual brothers and sisters? (Assuming a lot--that they would like the same for themselves, too.) Of course, we would! To both!
Because of this legacy, as gay men perhaps we view transvestism, transgenderism, and transsexuality as something of a cop-out. Add to all this the question of life on the downlow--"I'm not really gay, I'm bisexual" or worse, "I'm not gay, I just occasionally like to fuck guys"--and it can be challenging as a modern, right-on type of gay man to accept much deviation from "the norm."
But who are we denying by doing so? And what understanding and ways of being and consciousness are we denying ourselves?
I've got no answers here. I still think fame, fans, and family warped Michael Jackson in ways we've yet to comprehend, in ways that are totally separate from any question of his possible transgendered identity. I do think there are serious questions about him and his behavior--the child sexual abuse allegations, the manipulation, the victimhood, the excessive amounts of plastic surgery, the physical manifestation of his intent not to spend "life just being a color"--that warrant thoughtful analysis, understanding, and sympathy.
I would not, however, consider the transgenderism part of that warping. Not at all.
There's been a lot said about Michael Jackson these last couple of weeks--some of it excessively critical and caustic (who me?), some it excessively laudatory. Despite the fact that for a while he was the world's biggest music star and pop cultural icon, despite the fact that Michael sold millions of records, I'm not thoroughly convinced that he was the civil rights leader and cultural innovator that now many are quick to label him. He has his place, but does he have more social impact or cultural import than Martin Luther King, Jr., Lena Horne, Bill Cosby and the Huxtables, Rosa Parks, Barack Obama, Wilma Rudolph, Shirley Chisolm, or Prince? I just don't know.
If, however, Michael Jackson was trying to figure out who he was and how he should live as a woman inside a man's form, and attempting to do so in the brightest of limelights, known by nearly every person on the planet, that could well be the most important, impactful thing about him.
Rest in peace, Michael.
No comments:
Post a Comment