The ‘Bisexual’ Feminist Mind

Posted on | April 26, 2015 | 45 Comments

Shira Glassman is a “queer Jewish feminist author” or “a bisexual Jewish violinist” who lives with “her agender same-sex spouse.” However, she is not — definitely not — a lesbian:

I mean, in the real world, lesbians are attracted exclusively to women, bi women are attracted to multiple genders, and straight women are attracted to men.
But the way a lot of straight people — or misogynist men, anyway — see it, is that 1. women’s sexuality is a blank slate that basically anything can be projected onto if you want to talk her into it hard enough, rendering all women technically bi, and 2. lesbians prefer women, bi women are too horny to have a preference, and straight women are bi when their men want them to be. Or when they’re drunk enough to become “too horny to have a preference.”
I think I just figured out why so many straight people/gay men are invested in calling me a lesbian, a title I’d eagerly choose for myself if it was true. It’s not just that I’m in a very visible same-sex marriage. . . . It’s also that their entire worldview of women imposes a layer of bisexuality on us even when it’s not there. Because according to their bullshit definition, a woman who likes both but chooses women is a lesbian. That has nothing to do with the way lesbians define lesbianism, and it should go into the garbage. But at least now I understand it.

Is this . . . crazy?

If she is married to a woman, isn’t her “bisexuality” moot?

Why does it matter so much to Shira Glassman that, despite her same-sex marriage, no one should mistakenly call her a lesbian? Or, rather, why should Shira Glassman even care what “a lot of straight people — or misogynist men” think of her?

The first time I encountered feminists ranting about “bisexual erasure” — which sometimes takes the form of accusing others of “biphobia” or huffing about the alleged “monosexual” prejudice of lesbians and heterosexuals — I was both amused and puzzled.

What amused me was that this seemed to be mainly about political gesturing: “We’re oppressed victims, too!”

Is “special snowflake” a sexuality?

Once I stopped laughing, however, this idea of making an identity out of indecision — a state of permanent sexual confusion — struck me as a classic symptom of Peter Pan Syndrome. It was in 1983 that psychologist Dan Kiley described the phenomenon of men who were emotionally immature and thus incapable of romantic commitment. Kiley’s book was published at a time when a lot of Baby Boomers had reached their 30s, and “Peter Pan Syndrome” was to the 1980s what “mid-life crisis” was to the 1990s. An aversion to the adult responsibilities of marriage and parenthood was deeply implicated in what Christopher Lasch described as The Culture of Narcissism. What was once recognized as pathological, however, has now apparently been reinvented as a virtue, so that a condition of sexual ambiguity — “Maybe I like men, but maybe I like women, too” — is now a civil right or something.

Nobody cares about my (heterosexual male) opinion, but if I were asked to theorize why a woman in a lesbian marriage would be so insistent about her “bisexuality,” my guess would be that Shira Glassman doesn’t want anyone to consider her a reject.

In other words, in Shira Glassman’s mind “lesbian” is defined as “a woman that men don’t find attractive,” and by calling herself “bisexual” she intends to inform us that men — lots of men — find her very attractive. She had plenty of options, you see, and it’s not as if she’s with “her agender same-sex spouse” because of a lack of alternatives.

No, sir, Shira Glassman was the most popular girl in high school. Her date to the prom was the captain of the football team. His name was Eli Manning. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

When she was in college, Shira Glassman’s romantic life was an endless swirl of dream dates with handsome, muscular and charming guys. She was like Scarlett O’Hara, surrounded by lovestruck beaux at the Twelve Oaks barbecue, and after graduation, it was a constant quandry whether she should spend her Saturday nights with (a) the heir of a Texas oil fortune, (b) a Silicon Valley software mogul, or (c) Eli Manning, who really never got over being dumped by Shira after the prom.

So when Shira Glassman finally met the love of her life, “her agender same-sex spouse,” it wasn’t because there was any shortage of male interest, you see. No, Shira could have had any man she wanted — movie stars, Wall Street tycoons, pop singers, Eli Manning — and so it’s important that you understand that she is “bisexual,” and not one of those ugly lesbians that men don’t like.

“Bisexuality” is an assertion of her own superiority, because you “predatory men” need a stern lecture from Shira Glassman:

Lesbian erasure and invisibility had unintentionally taught me that those who looked at boobs sexually were often predatory men, and never young women. Imagine how that made me feel, especially at the age when everyone feels like they’re the only one. Even as an adult, learning to reconcile my strong belief in bodily autonomy with my attraction to the same body parts that many invasive men have preyed on was confusing and difficult.

Your daughters also need Shira Glassman’s advice:

Awkward teenage bisexual confessions, and
representation for young girls who crush on girls

Yes, it’s important that your daughters listen to Shira Glassman, a “queer Jewish feminist author” of children’s books.

Eli Manning could not be reached for comment.

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

45 Responses to “The ‘Bisexual’ Feminist Mind”

Phil_McG
April 26th, 2015 @ 7:05 pm

their voice had become a long, sustained whine, the megaphone of failure, like the sound of an oriental bazaar where leprous beggars, of spirit or matter, compete for attention by displaying their sores. – Ayn Rand
Durasim
April 26th, 2015 @ 7:37 pm

Perhaps as an opposite example, a lesbian on Salon explained that she is marrying a man (not a tranny man).

But she insists that her sexual orientation has never changed and that she is still and forever a lesbian. And she demands that everybody refer to her as such.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/im_a_lesbian_marrying_a_man/

Chirlane McCray was not available for comment.
robertstacymccain
April 26th, 2015 @ 7:43 pm

“I demand the right to call myself whatever I want, and if my chosen label does not conform to objective reality, this is because reality is hate!“
DeadMessenger
April 26th, 2015 @ 7:44 pm

Oh, for Pete’s sake! Why do we have all these flavors of sexuality, when they’re all so hard to keep track of.

I suggest two categories only. One is heterosexual, because they are the vast, vast, vast majority. The rest need a name that is easy to remember. I suggest “mentally ill”.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 26th, 2015 @ 7:57 pm

http://shop.wildirisbooks.com/sites/shop.wildirisbooks.com/files/DSCN1155_0.JPG

I think Eli would probably pass rather than run with Shira Glassman
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 26th, 2015 @ 8:31 pm

Or should I say run from her rather than make a pass at her.
Adobe_Walls
April 26th, 2015 @ 9:14 pm

And yet if one’s Horse insists he’s a German Shepard, mentioning that even in jest is considered in ”poor taste”.
Adobe_Walls
April 26th, 2015 @ 9:16 pm

Some of them aren’t mentally ill, They’re just trolling everyone else.
theoldsargesays
April 26th, 2015 @ 9:19 pm

And that doesn’t qualify them as mentally ill?
RS
April 26th, 2015 @ 9:37 pm

What’s fascinating about all of these various “People[s] of Grievance,” is that no matter what the group is, it’s initial beef always is “society treats me differently.” If/when, however, society gets to the point where it says, “We (Society) does not care one way or the other about your group; we will treat you like individuals,” then suddenly the grievance morphs to “why doesn’t Society acknowledge and celebrate our special-ness.” What this shows is that whatever plight such groups have, their actual unhappiness is not primarily attributable to how Society treats them.
LoneSage
April 26th, 2015 @ 10:05 pm

While I like the two categories the name I will use instead of mentally ill is sodomite.
Adobe_Walls
April 26th, 2015 @ 10:14 pm

Not necessarily.
robertstacymccain
April 26th, 2015 @ 10:20 pm

Lookism!
jakee308
April 26th, 2015 @ 10:49 pm

Is this really her? I could only find this image under google so I don’t presume that this a picture of the actual Shira Glassman.

It IS telling that NO image can be found (other than this) for her.

This would usually mean that
a) she’s ugly
b) she’s fat
c) she’s fat and ugly
d) she has an aversion to images of her being used for ANY purpose or taken by any FRIENDS (if she has any).
e) did I mention that she might be fat and ugly?
jakee308
April 26th, 2015 @ 10:51 pm

“Cuccoo for Cocoa Puffs” fits too.
jakee308
April 26th, 2015 @ 10:53 pm

Ah, but it does. They believe Society doesn’t treat them the way they BELIEVE they should be treated. (what ever that is).

It’s the cry of the rejected, the insane and the bitter.
tracycoyle
April 26th, 2015 @ 11:52 pm

Ok…I am half way through the above, but I want to put something out there. I think she is ignorant and assumes her point of view is the valid one. There are innate preferences, call them biological imperatives. Given that homosexuality is in every culture and race and has been for human history, it is clear it is at least a ‘normal’ outcome even if it is rare (1-3%). Like redheads.

I have an innate preference for men. I was born that way. However, I found someone that I wanted to spend my life with, whom happened to be a lesbian – she was born with an innate preference for women. It was easier to let people define us however worked for them, but I was not, nor am, a lesbian. Yes, I have stated I was during our relationship (my partner passed away in 2011). As before, I am seeing men again. MY personal preference is for someone I can love and be with, my innate preference limits that to men, but I am not a rutting animal that has to follow biology. I am a rational human with free will. Couching everything as bi, or straight or gay or anti- all of the above just confuses everyone that isn’t all of the above.
robertstacymccain
April 27th, 2015 @ 12:03 am

When we consider everything we could possibly do, why is it that what we want to do must become our identity? Ever since the radical gay-rights movement began its push to redefine …. well, damned near everything during the Clinton administration, I’ve been dumbfounded by the way some people have accepted without question what I call the “desire-is-destiny” worldview, whereby a person’s sexual desire — whatever it is we want to do — becomes a civil right. And disagreeing with that view is “hate.”

It’s an absurdity, and unnecessary. The insistence that gay people are “oppressed” because people disapprove of homosexuality — I simply can’t pretend to believe such nonsense, but there’s a lot of nonsense we’re supposed to believe that I refuse to accept. The problem is that truth is now determined by political power, in a democratic mob manipulated by clever elites.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:04 am

Maybe she is like the Pied Piper with that violin and can woo any man with her strings…

Because with her face, not so much.

Many “bisexuals” are going with women because they aren’t getting any offers from the guys.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:06 am

Yes, I think that is actually her.
tracycoyle
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:15 am

Like Hitler, first person to use ‘I’m oppressed’ is the idiot in the conversation. I didn’t care what others thought, my partner did and refused to hold hands in public. It wasn’t oppression, she had the belief that it would cause problems. The few times I took her hand in very public busy places, no one that I noticed, noticed. The Left needs angst to promote their solutions to angst and will dream it up if they can’t find it.

And hate…damn, there is damn little I “hate” in this society. On the planet I hate ISIS, I hate the Muslim fanatic and the quarter billion that support them. But here, in this country? People use the term ‘hate’ as applied to ‘others’ the same way they say they hate peas. Can’t imagine wanting to ban peas because of all the hate on them…
tracycoyle
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:17 am

People treat me differently and I’ve worked damn hard to make sure of it. Who wants to be the same as everyone else. No cookie cutter for me!

Oh, in all the Universe, there is only one me. Makes me all the special I need….along with all the other 7 billion unique special people.
Daniel Freeman
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:27 am

What’s wrong with saying you’re bi, when the facts imply it? As a memeticist, I believe that bisexual erasure is a real thing; I’ve observed it. As a rationalist, I also find it puzzling.

(See for example the Buffy episode where Willow is enchanted by a magical letterman’s jacket to fall in love with a guy, and her reaction is to want to turn him into a woman, despite having had a boyfriend before. Total bullshit.)
tracycoyle
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:34 am

I assume that our innate preferences are genetically/hormonely set prior to birth. Either or. We can CHOOSE to live any which way, but the innate, which is how I prefer to define myself, rather than whatever I am doing. If you’d rather think of me as bi, that’s fine. Doesn’t change anything for me and if it works for you, that’s fine too. Do you need me to categorize myself into terms that work for you? Not my job.
Clinton Foundation admits to cheating on taxes…is Hillary’s campaign collapsing? | Batshit Crazy News
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:46 am

[…] Instapundit: Read Glenn’s article and Clinton Foundation A Slush Fund The Lid: Questions about Hillary’s emails TOM: The Bisexual Feminist Mind […]
Daniel Freeman
April 27th, 2015 @ 1:55 am

That is not a satisfying answer, and I resent the snark. I’m perfectly capable of categorizing you. The question was, why not choose a self-definition that fits the evidence?
tracycoyle
April 27th, 2015 @ 2:07 am

I did. You disagree with my self-definition, what I do does not define me, who I am does. As I said, if you believe that I am ‘bi’ and categorize me as such, ok. If it works for you, I’m fine with it.
Daniel Freeman
April 27th, 2015 @ 2:09 am

We will have to agree to disagree then, because I firmly believe that character is what you do.
Lalani Quintessa
April 27th, 2015 @ 3:39 am

To address a few points in this article:

No her being married to a woman does not make her personal sexual identification as a “bisexual” moot.

I dated both males and females through High School and College, as well as through my adult life.

I have been married to a man…I have had a polyamorous relationship with said husband and a woman I loved.

I have been divorced. I am now engaged to a woman.

What am I? Care to categorize me? WHY DOES IT MATTER?!

I love who I love… based on the person they are, the chemistry, and the connection that is built between myself and that person.

I have identified myself as all of the above: Bisexual… Lesbian… and Straight at some points in my life. Why is it your business to judge that? Why is it your business to take an author, artist, musicians works and put them into question because of the label she chooses to use to identify herself or her relationship?

Have you read her books? Do you understand why she writes what she writes? Or have you only seen blogs and posts that discuss her books and give abridged versions of the blogger/post writers personal opinions of them?

Secondly:
Why does anyone assume that if someone labels themselves as bisexual that it means they MUST be ugly…fat…unwanted by either gender… OR… so conceited that they believe they are wanted by all?

Why can’t you people questioning the label… just understand that perhaps the person labeling themselves as Bisexual actually are attracted to both males and females?

Third:
Considering anything other than the label of heterosexual as “mental illness”, “sodomites”, “Cuccoo for Cocoa Puffs

“… Seriously?! You have GOT to be kidding me! Homosexuality has been found in EVERY society and EVERY species for a thousand years or better. Also… sodomites?? I HIGHLY doubt that the majority of lesbians are sodomites.
In closing:
Everyone has a right to their own happiness and their own lifestyle. Whether it is understood by others or not. However, we are doing ourselves and our entire country a huge disservice by actively spreading hate due to your closed minded misunderstandings.
No one is forcing you to read her books, or listen to her music. You should consider that a privilege! If you don’t like what she has to say, or her powerful imagination and skillful storytelling abilities…it’s plain and simple… don’t read it and go on about your business. I am quite sure there are more important social, political, or world altering matters you can discuss, than an Authors chosen sexual orientation and labeling.
RS
April 27th, 2015 @ 7:23 am

Everyone has a right to their own happiness and their own lifestyle. Whether it is understood by others or not.

Contemplate those two sentences. If they are true, what then is the end point? Setting aside the fact that such words are employed by all manner of evil persons to justify horrific behavior, I’m perfectly happy to leave you alone; to ignore you.

However, that is not what you wish. You wish to be celebrated. You desire my approval, whether that approval is genuine or whether it is merely an surface expression compelled by force. In reality you desire that your “right to happiness and . . . lifestyle” trump mine.
totenhenchen
April 27th, 2015 @ 7:57 am

“Lesbian erasure and invisibility had unintentionally taught me that those who looked at boobs sexually were often predatory men…”

Ironic, given that I have personally observed highly predatory behavior (not to mention near-psychotic possessiveness) in lesbians — particularly thirty- and forty-something lesbians who target college girls that have suddenly discovered sexual ambiguity after attending required Women’s Studies classes.
Durasim
April 27th, 2015 @ 8:47 am

“If you don’t like what she has to say, or her powerful imagination and skillful storytelling abilities…it’s plain and simple… don’t read it and go on about your business.”

And if LGBT activists don’t like what evangelical Christians preach or what self-identified “ex-gays” say about their sexual orientation, why don’t they simply refuse to read about it and go about their own business?

And on that note, you yourself have chosen to read somebody else’s blog that was not addressed to you so that you can voice your objections and denunciations to the content. Even though you always had the option to “refuse to read about it” and go about your own business.

This seems to be a variant of the “Why Do You Care?” method of you shut-uppery.

If you do not like what progressive/feminist/queer activists says = shut up and go about your business

If you do not like what conservatives/religious/traditionalists says = protest, militate, intimidate, or legislate so that they conform to your demands
Durasim
April 27th, 2015 @ 9:13 am

“I have identified myself as all of the above: Bisexual… Lesbian… and Straight at some points in my life. Why is it your business to judge that?”

Because political activists have claimed that those sexual designations are permanent, unquestionable, unchangeable, and immutable aspects of a person and that therefore, society must radically reform its mores and laws to accommodate and celebrate those things (the non-heterosexual categories). And if anybody dares to dispute that, activists felt it was their business to judge and denounce any such persons.

If those claims of “born that way” are honest and accurate, then persons should not be fluctuating between sexual orientations throughout their lives. If sexual orientation is actually some fixed and permanent aspect, then “sexual fluidity” should not be a thing.

And in fact, when some persons who identified as homosexual claim to no longer be homosexual, they sometimes earn swift vituperation from the gay rights movement.

When persons dare to point out that the assertions of “born that way” do not seem to jive with freewheeling declarations of “I love who I love,” then all the sudden, we are told that this is now “private” and “none of our business” and that “labels don’t matter.”

Despite the fact that feminist and homosexual activists have been yelling and making it into society’s compulsory business for decades now.
Marcus Rodriguez
April 27th, 2015 @ 9:20 am

It sure does take a lot of time and effort to write an article about someone’s personal life and put this much vindictive rhetoric into it. Did Shira do something to hurt your feelings or something?
Finrod Felagund
April 27th, 2015 @ 9:23 am

It’s easy for women to be bisexuals. It’s considerably more difficult for men. Gay men think you’re in denial about being gay and treat as such, or treat you worse than they treat straight men. Straight men think you’re an AIDS vector no matter how safe you play, even when the straight men are the ones who never bother with barriers.

It’s no wonder that a full 25 percent of gay male porn stars self-identify as straight.
Durasim
April 27th, 2015 @ 9:48 am

Remember Andrew Sullivan laughing off Tom Daley’s insistence that he was bisexual and still had attraction for females?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/12/09/whats-a-bisexual-anyway-ctd-11/

Despite other commentators denouncing Sullivan for his condescension, his prediction turned out to be accurate.

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/tom-daley-coming-out-gay/

I don’t recommend Slate articles, but there was one that addressed this.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/01/30/what_is_homophobia_why_straight_men_are_right_to_be_afraid_of_homosexuality.html

Once it is known that a male person did sexual things with other male persons, certain presumptions will be made and they may very well be excommunicated from the heterosexual realm. (Especially if they were doing the “catching” rather than the “pitching.” Prison rapists often say that because they do the penetrating and not the receiving, that they are not gay and can claim to be heterosexual.)

Female persons may be reticent to fraternize with such male persons if they learn about this, for various reasons. “Men who have sex with men” are quite over-represented in STD statistics. In addition to fears of HIV, there is also the notion that such male persons are not “real men” anymore, and are thus unattractive to heterosexual women.

Among MTV’s execrable shows, there is one called “True Life” and it had an episode about people in the sex industry. One of them was a man who identified as heterosexual but who worked in homosexual pornography.

His chief struggle was with convincing everybody else that he still was still heterosexual, despite his profession. His friends and family (the ones aware of his job) were all shaking their heads at his protests. But most condescending were his homosexual coworkers who were all chanting that it was only a matter of time for him, and that there was no use in delay or denial on his part. As far as they were concerned, his occupation and conduct decided his orientation for him.
Finrod Felagund
April 27th, 2015 @ 11:48 am

It takes time and effort to create a new Disqus profile just for the purpose of leaving a comment. Did your ox get gored?
PCachu
April 27th, 2015 @ 12:58 pm

Yeah, I just got an email from Cocoa Puffs. They’ve filed for a restraining order.
Daniel Freeman
April 27th, 2015 @ 3:04 pm

Alinsky rule 12. Shira is just a cog in a machine, but it is a toxic machine and needs to be dismantled.
Daniel Freeman
April 27th, 2015 @ 3:19 pm

The need for money to make rent is a powerful force, but a healthy culture would put limits on what people are willing to do. You will not walk away the same person.

The human brain is plastic. As I always say, “Whatever you think and do, changes you.”
Daniel Freeman
April 27th, 2015 @ 7:43 pm

For all his flaws, Sullivan at least has the virtue of saying what he thinks.

I suspect, pace Friedman’s dreams, that there will always be far fewer men who transcend traditional sexual categories – because male sexuality is much cruder, simpler and more binary than female. It’s much more nature than nurture, even though the precise balance has always been close to unanswerable. So, as the cultural constraints recede, we may soon find out a lot more. Or not very much at all, as I confidently predict.
Marcus Rodriguez
April 28th, 2015 @ 1:16 pm

Yeah, I’m annoyed. Mainstream feminism is eroding attention from genuine issues by advancing pointless, distracting, stupid causes like defining sexuality Baskin Robins style, and here you guys are contributing to it and falling for it.

Last year Beyonce was too busy banning the word “bossy” and her radfems were too busy with this HeForShe bullshit, to pay attention that the Iraqi parliament was going to legalize rape, prohibit women from leaving home without the permission of their husband, and legalize marriage for nine year olds, and meanwhile Saudi Arabia’s new “anti-terror” law makes it so that women can be tried for terrorism because they simply get behind the wheel of a car. People listen to your asses, you’ve got a good thing going on here…And yet, you’re spending your time crawling tumblr blog posts like this is high school. Come on. If she had done something to you then at least that would have been half-ass understandable.
Marcus Rodriguez
April 28th, 2015 @ 1:27 pm

It is a toxic machine. I agree that the obsessive thought-police plague needs to be dismantled but crawling Tumblr blog posts is not how you dismantle a machine, and tumblrinas are tumblrinas, not cogs in the machine.

The cogs of the machine include the banks, oil companies and PR firms that bankrolled the “Ban Bossy” campaign, the celebrity feminists who are listened to by the masses, and the media that tries to neuter boys into complacency and tell girls that motherhood is worthless, not some chick on Tumblr.
Durasim
April 28th, 2015 @ 3:03 pm

It is not an “either/or” proposition. If you read any other the posts on this blog, you would see that McCain can and does frequently criticize the academic, corporate, and celebrity feminist aspects which you claim to oppose and be concerned about. But calling attention to “Tumblr” feminism is necessary and useful in drawing attention to how hideous and ridiculous the ideology is when it is observed on the individual scale.

You say that you are “annoyed” with feminism and that you oppose “radfems” and all their “bullshit.”

But the only thing that has motivated you enough to create a Disqus profile and actually comment here is so you can insult and denounce McCain as being petty and immature because he mocked an individual’s demonstration and manifestation of feminist lunacy.
Yes, you oppose feminism and its insidious reach, but it seems that the most important thing to you is that we cease and desist from insulting a feminist.

Yeah, tell us another one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll
Daniel Freeman
April 28th, 2015 @ 8:35 pm

banks, oil companies and PR firms that bankrolled the “Ban Bossy” campaign

You know things. Stick around and share them. You will have more of an influence that way than by telling someone else that he’s doing it wrong.

ETA: Speaking from experience.