Customer Reviews

Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Reading Jennifer Baumgardner's Look Both Ways is like discovering that you share a secret with a friend you've known all your life. Part-memoir, part-cultural critique, the book is essential for anyone who wants to understand bisexuality and how it fits into our culture. On a personal note, as a woman who's been repeatedly rejected and trampled on by men, Look Both Ways helped me to realize it's not so strange to find the emotional support I need in relationships with women. Using Ani DiFranco, Anne Heche, the L-Word, and Virginia Woolf as her gateways into pop culture, Baumgardner both deflates and embraces the bisexual stereotypes she discusses. As a single mom and an advocate for feminism and reproductive rights, Jennifer Baumgardner is a pillar of strength in a world of Paris Hiltons. Today, people might be willing to embrace "alternative" lifestyle choices if you'd label yourself so they can package you up and stack you on the shelf with the rest of the queers. In this book, Baumgardner makes the point of saying it isn't that easy--sexuality is a complicated creature, with every experience, every moment of one's life influencing who we choose to love. With interviews from women from all walks of life, Look Both Ways helped me to really consider and ultimately embrace the ambiguities of my sexuality--she helped me lift the stigma I'd associated with my relationships past. And I can't think of anything more important than a book that makes you stop and reevaluate your life for the better.

Other reviewers have praised this book to high heaven. Therefore, I will not go over what the author does well--they have done it for me. I will simply critique what drove me INSANE about this book: The notion that, for men, bisexuality is a sexuality, but for women, it is an "evolved" political statement, a "feminist choice", or a way of experimenting in the college and post-college years. Maybe this is true for some women (and if it's true for many women, it would certainly explain why so many so-called "bi" women from my college years are now monogamously married to men and never even think about women sexually). Yet certain bi women have sexualities very much like bi men: They are sexually aroused by women as hot bodies and faces. They did not need to attend a women's studies class or work at Ms. magazine to find this to be true; they knew it from puberty. I would have preferred if the author had explored this type of bisexual woman a bit more. In addition, I felt that she took the 'sex' out of bisexuality, at least when it came to bi women having sex with other women. Again, there are some bi women who find sex with women to be just as (if not more) physical, libidinous, lustful, and frenzied than sex with men--not the sexual equivalent of a commercial for herbal tea or feminine hygeine products. Female bisexuality is not some kind of fad that grew out of riot grrrl, the 1990s brief moment of third wave feminism, or the shrill warblings of folk singers. For some at least, it is no different than male bisexuality: desiring sexual activities--as distinguished from sappy romantic friendships--with both genders and both genders equally. In the author's view, it seems no more than a brief girl-girl kiss after a stereotypical weepy bonding moment over how much 'boys stink'. Lastly, not all lesbians are or desire masculine women. One does not have to be bisexual to both look feminine and exclusively desire feminine women.

By far the most interesting, most readable and most satisfying exploration of bisexuality I've read, and certainly the most interesting book on the intersection of bisexuality and feminism ever written. Baumgardner is young, and of a different generation, but her thoughts and experiences are completely in line with my own, and so of course I embrace them as brilliantly insightful.

The connections to feminism are fascinating, though she gives short shrift to male bisexuality. That said, her insights are fascinating and her weaving of personal anecdote with a more global and maturing political awareness is well worth reading.

This book belongs on the bookshelf of every one interested in human sexuality, and especially those active in the Queer community.

A remarkable book.

This is a very sincere well-written and thought out personal story, which can give support and affirmation to women who feel bogged down and misrepresented by identity politics. It is insightful and truthful, and lends honest help to women who aren't sure how to evaluate their sexual lives or inclinations. I'm glad I read it--it can't help but make you feel better about yourself.

Jennifer broke up with Anastasia because she for two main reasons. First, she didn't feel like the two of them were different enough. Second, she craved a male's body and missed being objectified. It is therefore unusual that Jennifer then goes on to remark how she didn't have to be "so polite and processed" around women. Perhaps there was an illusion of likeness characterized by the interaction of Jennifer and Anastasia masked by the fact that Jennifer consciously altered her actions. It is also unusual that the author strongly supported feminism (though rather blandly) by wearing black boots because she believed high heels objectified a woman. Yet she craved Steven's body and felt incomplete due to the lack of objectification by Anastasia. The act of wanting to be objectified not only counteracts her feminism, it is a blatant disregard to the backbone of feminist theory - that we live in a patriarchal society due to the objectification of women!

Next let's look at Jennifer's circumstances before ending her relation with Steven. It is important to mention Jennifer wanted to maintain heterosexual privilege which she gained by being with Steven. Jennifer was upset with Steven because he didn't seem to care about her advocating gay rights. But she never raises the question "Why would a white male who is self-identified as a heterosexual have any interest whatsoever in gay rights?" And doesn't being a gay rights activist and self-identifed bisexual diminish her heterosexual privilege? It seems naïve to believe that Steven would show interest in gay rights as it does not affect him. But then she started having the kind of relationship she wanted with Steven, the kind that let her be free and confident. But this did not matter, because when she met Amy, she dumped Steven anyway.

It seems our self-identified bisexual is confused, not only about what it means to be a feminist, but also that gender isn't correspondent to biological sex. Throughout everything, Jennifer shows absolutely no knowledge of gender even existing. She states that Steven was not gay but he could closely analyze fashion. This only goes to show that she does not believe it possible that masculine or heterosexual men show traits identified with females.

Now lets raise the question, what does it mean to be bisexual? She tends to hint that bisexuals are truly lesbians as she states "Anastasia left me for a true lesbian." This statement tells us not only does Jennifer believe bisexuals are lesbians, but that she herself is not truly bisexual as she "craves a mans body." If we believe (as we should) that sexuality is a fluid spectrum and that bisexuals just aren't polarized the way heterosexuals and homosexuals are, we must disregard many of Jennifer's remarks. Some may argue that she is shifting between ends of the spectrum yet I would have to disagree with remarks such as "true lesbian" and "craves a mans body."

Another annoyance is the remark she made about her touching another womens breast and enjoying it because breasts are so hyper- eroticized in America. Just because something is hyper-eroticized does not make it attractive to everyone. Shoes aren't hyper-eroticized yet shoe fetishes are among the most common. It seems more appropriate to state that the act of touching a breast was "enjoyable" either due to attraction or due to the excitement of a first-time act.

It's a horrifying thought that this person does interviews about what it means to be bisexual backed only by her own unsubstantiated criteria. This sexually confused human being needs to do some research on bisexuality and interact with some true bisexuals instead of propagating the superficial notions and stereotypes of bisexuals. She doesn't know what sexuality is, she doesn't know what gender is, she can't even see her contradicting goals. What more is there to say, this human being need tape over her mouth.

This last part of the review on "Look Both Ways" will cover one very strong flaw throughout the whole book; Jennifer vastly over simplifies the complexity of human beings. She knows by looking at someone what their sexual orientation is, she knows by looking at someone if their her type, she knows by looking at someone what kind of lesbian they are. Instead of talking in circles, let us jump right into the criticism!
Throughout the entire book, Jennifer tends to classify lesbians (or even bisexuals) into specific categories. Often she even creates categories of her own. Such classifications occur almost any time she interacts with another girl who is not a readily apparent "heterosexual female." When Jennifer meets Suzie she immediately compares they type of lesbian Suzie is to the type of lesbian Shane is noting, "Suzie was not a ... tomboy lesbian like Shane... she was a beautiful Portia de Rossi type." This makes very little sense as it is an obscure reference to an actress with several traits. One could raise a plethora of ways that Suzie was a Portia de Rossi type of lesbian; her height, her weight, her complexion, her hair color, her clothing style, her personality traits, etc. Further more if we tried, we could undoubtedly come up with ways that Shane is a Portia de Rossi lesbian. Also, throughout the entire book the term "butch" is used in overabundance. This differentiation is very troublesome without any positive benefits.

The lesbian community, quite often a feminist community, is already divided from the homosexual and transsexual communities. Imagine if each of these communities was further divided down further into categories such as "butch-lesbian," "Portia de Rossi lesbian," or "Tomboy-lesbian." There is nothing wrong with categorizing personality traits, but our author fails to present them as such. It would be must more efficient if Jennifer made a point to focus on personality without including information relevant to sexual identity. For example, instead of saying Suzie was a Portia de Rossi lesbian, focus on her individual and unique traits. Jennifer should have said something along the lines of "Suzie was 5'6" with a sleek body and blonde hair; she had a dark skin tone that appeared oily in a way that enhanced her complexion. Upon discussion, my suspicions were correct, Suzie was a self-identified lesbian." Plus there's the disgusting notion that only the Portia de Rossi type of lesbian is beautiful, even though beauty is by far in viewers eye.

This brings me to my next point, which I believe deserves strong emphasis. If it isn't already sad enough that our author has no concept of gender, she believes that by looking at someone she can tell their sexual identity. When Jennifer saw Suzie she blatantly said "Suzie was clearly a lesbian." Even though it turned out that she was right, it is offensive to think that Jennifer bestows upon herself the power to force a sexual identity onto a complete stranger. After reading most of the chapters in this book, it may be too generous to say that Jennifer vaguely grasps the concept of sexual orientation. It is far too presumptuous to judge something as complex as sexual orientation based on the way one dresses on one given day. Also this leaves no room for another person to classify their own sexual orientation. I have difficulty believing if I went up to Jennifer Baumgardner and said, "Your clearly heterosexual" that she would take it lightly. Furthermore it has already been shown the author cant judge someone sexual identity by looking at them because she was surprised that Steven wasn't gay!

As with Anastasia, Amy, and Steven, Jennifer has a sudden falsely-perceived serendipity and says "She's [Suzie] definitely my type." This whole book is based on a person who has the emotional complexity of a 12 year old. Every person she's with she questions in some way, and she questions herself constantly. "Could I really have the type of relation with Amy that I do with Steven?" NO!!! Because Amy isn't Steven, they are different sexes, different genders, and have different personality traits. It's disgusting and offending to think that Jennifer portrays human-beings as nothing more than shallow, simple, definite creatures.

Now that this book has been read, and I know that I never have to read it again, the pain is subsiding.

My brain, heart, and groin were all excited by this totally absorbing book, which contains both a personal account of the author's romantic history -- chiefly four main love interests (bi woman, straight guy, 5-star lesbian musician, and straight guy who fathered her child but does not live with her) --and a brilliant inquiry into sexuality and larger issues of personal identity. Jennifer has interviewed many leading writers, artists, and musicians about their choices and we come to see that increasingly, at least for women, the old labels - straight, gay, and bi -- are irrelevant given that so many have jumped back and forth between same-sex and opposite-sex liasons. Whether it's bedroom dymanics, sexual politics, influences from the workplace or campus or evolving gay-tolerant cultural influences -- the reasons underlying who woman are bedding today are incredibly complicated and worthy of profound self-examination, which she has done brilliantly. What makes the book even more arousing is that the author -- as is apparent from the jacket cover and from a live reading I attended -- is a smoking hot beauty, who must have vastly more-than-average sexual-partner options; but once you're but a few pages into this book, you will find -- as the old adage goes about the brain being the primary erotic organ -- that it's the author's penetrating prose more than anything else that has irresistably won you over and charmed you into hanging onto her every word.
Note that the book is almost exclusively focused on female sexuality, but any man will benefit from learning about women and wondering how applicable Jennifer's inquiry is to men of all sexual procliviities. A tour de force.

LOOK BOTH WAYS was recently selected for reading by our book club. Our review was unanimous. 4 thumbs down. I--like the 9 others in our club-- found the topic of interest, but the writing convulted and contrived. The author's self absorbed writing style drifted down two roads: Incessant, aimless name dropping or meandering analogies that digressed to the point of the reader not being able to see the forest through the dense thicket of trees and scrub.

Although many in my liberal-topic book club have an interest (or personal stake) in feminism & bisexuality, LOOK BOOTH WAYS rambled on in a vain attempt to make its point(s). It was a confusing, tedious, highly disappointing read. So much so that my partner and I could not finish it.

Sadly, instead of looking to make a concise and meaningful conclusion, LOOK BOTH WAYS looked every which way but where it should have.

Okay, let me give credit where credit is due. The author's project is much like Adrienne Rich's in "Compulsory Heterosexuality." In that groundbreaking essay, Rich argued against a limited definition of lesbianism that makes lesbians invisible. In a way, she argues that any time a woman affirms another woman, that can be deemed lesbian. B. Smith makes the same type of argument in "Towards a Black Feminist Criticism." Here, the author said, "Let's not think of straight girls going gay or lesbians going straight. Let's define all women who have ever had dynamics with both genders as bisexual." Thus, she is trying to work against epithets like LUG or "on the bi now, gay later plan" to present something more encompassing.

Still, I am horribly grossed out by how she says close to nothing on bisexual men. There is a documentary about gay men and the meth epidemic which only interviews white gay men. I was horrified that the monochrome image of the discussion never gets spelled out. There's about called "Money Shot: Inside the Black Porn Industry." It excluded gay, Black men and really should have had the word "straight" in the title. The classic documentary "Tongues Untied" was criticized for not including lesbians, but the makers always made a point that they were not trying to speak for Black lesbians and didn't want to appropriate their issues. This book should have really been called "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics IN FEMINIST COMMUNITIES" or "Look Both Ways: FEMALE Bisexual Politics." The "Close to Home" anthology stated from the jump that it spoke about bisexual women only. Why didn't this author do the same thing!?

Some activists opine that feminism and other progressive movements are meant to lift up those who are most oppressed. I read a study somewhere in which heterosexuals stated whether they were comfortable with bisexual women, bisexual men, lesbians, or gay men. The result was that heterosexuals are the most comfortable with bisexual women and the least comfortable with bisexual men. So "Look Both Ways" spells out how bisexual women are oppressed, but says little on how they are privileged. There is a documentary on swinging in which a female swinger says, "Women are encouraged to discover their bisexuality here, but if a man showed signs of bisexuality, he'd be asked to leave the scene." The author never once ponders that.

The author quotes many canonical lesbian and bisexual texts. Susie Bright who has had sex with many women and men once wrote about why she was not embracing the Bisexual Movement. I wish the author would have juggled with some of the points made in Bright's essay. Finally, I'm surprised that Indigo Som's essay didn't come up.

You may recognize Jennifer Baumgardner, the co-author of "Manifesta." "Manifesta" was great, a basic and in-depth feminist, well, manifesta for young women of the early 00's. I highly recommend it as a primer.

And then "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics" by Jennifer Baumgardner caught my eye at the library. [...]

I've noticed that the vast majority of nonfiction I read can be divided into two categories: purely objective information and subjective semi-autobiography. Sadly, these two writing styles can be divided between the sexes. Women authors almost always include personal anecdotes and opinions in their nonfiction, while men are more likely to just write the evidence and analysis. "Look Both Ways" really takes the cake - Baumgardner appears to have interviewed only women akin to her class, background, profession, gender expression and urban location. Their stories intermingle with her own - this is not hard journalism, this is a blog. Which is fine! But don't write a 227 page blog of one's opinions and pass it off as "women's studies"!

And then there are all the issues in the book itself. At first, I schlepped through this book to find a few gems of actual information; about halfway through, it became a page-turning hurricane of shock. Many of the "drawbacks" of bisexuality she describes can be remedied by having a spine. A brain wouldn't hurt either.

On page 32, Baumgardner explains her relationship with a man, Steven, and cheating on him with a woman, Amy. She states in very clear terms that her relationship with Steven was just what she always wanted BECAUSE of her relationship with Amy. By stretching her relationship wants and needs across two people, she was better able to appreciate them both. So what does she do? Dumps Steven! And here I'm stomping on the book, screaming "try polyamory, stupid! POLYAMORY!" Alas, the option of non-monogamy isn't mentioned at all in the entire book.

Page 141: "Women are entering into relationships with men with gay expectations, but they don't know how to actualize those expectations or, sometimes, even acknowledge them. It's part of the paradox of feminism, of feminism's unfinished revolution: women expect equality from their relationships, but not from men." If a woman is in a relationship with a man and she doesn't communicate her expectations she bears the responsibility of her disappointment. And expecting equality in relationships but not from men? Is Baumgardner writing about thinking adults here? She seems to have a pretty low opinion on men in general, but this makes women look contradictory and weak as well.

Page 143, Baumgardner writes about the appeal of a bisexual/lesbian girlfriend to men. The first reason for this, apparently, queer (a term mentioned once in the book) women lack the neediness of straight women. The author herself proved that false: she was very needy in her relationships. The second reason is that a man, who's CLEARLY commitment-phobic, knows that he won't have to commit to a queer woman. This is just insulting to everyone. And the final reason is that queer women tend to be more independent - actually, I really have no argument here. You've read my blog, this isn't news.

Those are all the specific snippets I have lined up. Overall, "Look Both Ways" is insulting. It insults men by calling them inherently misogynistic, emotionally dense, commitment-phobic and insecure. It insults women by calling them needily dependent, always looking for "The One", childlike, and stupid enough to date one of those Neanderthal men while expecting something more syrupy. To be sure, PLENTY of people who fulfill these stereotypes exist - these Breeders (not a sexuality-specific term) are the bane of my existence. Beaumgardner's worldview is so small that these may very well be the only gender roles she knows. How a 40something, bisexual, feminist journalist in NYC could emulate Carrie Bradshaw so well is beyond me.

And it's additionally insulting to pick up a book bearing the subtitle "Bisexual Politics" and to discover "My Repeated Bisexual Mistakes." The one real drawback to bisexuality mentioned in this book is that one's sexuality is perceived as reliant on one's partner. "Oh you're straight now" when dating a man, "oh you're a lesbian now" when dating a woman. So many people don't see bisexuality as a real sexual orientation because their own minds change it based on changing partners. Baumgardner explains this problem...and then implies that the bisexual person feels some kind of guilt?!?!? Guilt for other people's inability to conceptualize fluidity?!? Guilt for not living up to some bisexual role, which apparently doesn't exist because Baumgardner isn't aware of polyamory?!?

intriguing. help me learn a lot about the bi community when i was figuring myself out. great memoir.