See my video where I go more in-depth on my feelings and interpretations. This particular relationship was quite polarized by politics, and was ultimately ended by a difference in values which was typically expressed thru political debate. The classic story of the guy born on the wrong side of the tracks getting involved with someone who never experienced that kind of depravity or scarcity. I just never felt understood, and certainly not respected, by this partner, largely because he expected me to follow certain protocols and stick in certain boxes, and fill a quota of time toward him.
In reflection, another aspect of his judgment of my prioritizing performance and singing in the midst of financial trouble, was jealousy. Weekends were dedicated to putting myself out there as that is when more people are walking by to hear and more money is to be made. He wanted weekends to be dedicated to him instead. He saw no value in what I was doing, nor did he ever, once, come out to see me perform. So the fiscal focus was a bit of a coverup, wasn’t it? He was looking for excuses to get me to prioritize him over the music. Considering we were only two months into dating at the time this started, I wasn’t having any of that, and I think he was used to getting his way in relationships. It was all quite a challenge on both sides, because I felt his need for more time together, but it wasn’t the right time for that.
Then the pressure to move in together began. And the objectifications, the inappropriate sexual touching in public places and around friends. Yes, gay men do indeed experience misogyny pointed at them, and this was no exception. Every step of the way, it was as though he was trying to capture me rather than integrate with me. And I don’t believe it was intentional, though it was clearly his natural method. Hopefully he got past that impulse to control the other. I hope so. He is not a bad man, just a misguided one. But if he continues on the path of the controller, I figure he will always be surrounded by those with self-esteem issues who cannot take care of themselves or feel they deserve to be owned, and of course others who frequently complain about the “old maid at home”. What a pity.
As far as politics, I find them distasteful because so often they center around the “other” abuse and the “other” being owned somehow. Oh, we don’t have funding for this minority assistance program or this education improvement plan, but oh yes, certainly, let’s cut taxes to the corporations and high-earning individuals whose biggest concern will be a diminished investment portfolio and lower profit margins. The tax break is a welcome relief in a game of numbers and statistics. But those programs help to save and build lives. They both matter. They are both important, and hard decisions do have to made sometimes to protect the many, even at expense of the few innocents, but that is just in this here system we find ourselves in.
It reminds me of war, and friendly fire, and civilian casualties. A good officer, a good general, a good commander, captain, whoever is in charge, will do their due diligence, their utmost to minimize damage and casualties in a conflict. Depending on how bad the situation is, the harder it is to minimize, but that is the next highest priority to victory itself. A victory without these factors considered or implemented typically is remembered as a tragedy. Those where the conflict is so big it felt necessary to scapegoat one party, as in WWII and Japan, this enters into a realm open to debate, but I can’t personally condone that decision. Too much. Too many lives. Too much devastation to innocent life and the land. We make a big fuss over Pearl Harbor, a military strike, devastating but isolated, when we obliterated two cities for generations? An entire culture diminished into a state of recovery for decades. Damn near the genocidal naziism we were fighting against, don’t you think? I digress.
Politics in our current system, and the capitalist system where it seems to be going, feels like a war. And maybe it is necessary. Maybe it isn’t. I’ll leave my thoughts on that tucked away for now, but at the very least, we need political leaders and corporate heads who are mindful of the damages caused to the world and various social groups in the decisions they make. The bottom line is the bottom line, but the bottom line should be people, not money. A little bit of personal sacrifice and hardship to ensure an entire culture, an entire generation of children, an entire group of handicapped individuals (in one way or another) can persist is clearly the right path. And if there is an issue with the details of how a more liberal program is handling those funds, by all means, handle that, but don’t shit all over the people it is intended for.
And certainly, anybody like this ex of mine who sees fit to judge and demean others for prioritizing the humanities over business and finance, consider where the world would be without people who do. Now I’m not saying all these will happen with a little bump down in humanism, but here are some examples of what could happen if they were stomped down into dysfunction by this attitude: Good-bye to the last shreds of artistic dignity in cinema and TV. Good-bye to most of the music you take for granted on the radio. Good-bye to recovery programs for those who truly were devastated (by natural disaster, for instance, or criminal violence). Good-bye to the most beautiful of artwork out there. Good-bye to any human-centric therapy and hello to cold, hard diagnosis and one-size-fits-all physical and mental “therapy”. Good-bye to what’s left of environmental stability. Good-bye to literature, various cuisines, most pets (entire breeds), and good-bye anywhere, ever, without advertisements somewhere in your face prompting you to buy. Which is more important, the money, the tool, or all the things it is meant to support?
I think I have said my peace.