“’You don’t want to be doing that,’ the men in our families would say. ‘That’s a girl thing.’ Baking scones and cupcakes for the school janitors, watching Guiding Light with our mothers, collecting rose petals for use in a fragrant potpourri: anything worth doing turned out to be a girl thing” (Me Talk Pretty One Day, 10).
I would like to analyze this quote from the perspective of Queer Temporality and Postmodern Geographies, specifically with the idea of “strict bourgeois rules of respectability” (5) that Halberstam alludes to.
David Sedaris, while considered to be a “conservative” queer individual, certainly represents someone who lives an alternative lifestyle. He complements the traditional bourgeois lifestyle that Halberstam discusses where he is performing many actions traditionally associated with upper-class individuals, but he is a man, and these actions are associated with women. Scones and cupcakes are reminiscent of the English high tea as well as rose petals, however, these objects are traditionally made and used by women. Men may only discreetly enjoy these things, if they even notice them, and they are certainly not expected or encouraged to aid with their fabrication. The fact that David Sedaris not only does these things, but enjoys them and seeks them out, represents a twisting of bourgeois ideals. This twist also has an interesting effect on queer culture; David Sedaris, an openly gay man, could be considered to be playing into the stereotype that gay men are extremely feminine.
David Sedaris’ “queer” twist on an otherwise respected, if feminine, practice puts an interesting spin on both queer and heteronormative/bourgeois ideals. In terms of heteronormative/bourgeois ideals, he is fulfilling the aristocratic desire to engage in high tea, watch television with his elders, and create aromatic house pieces. However, he is engaging in these practices not because he is expected to, which he would be if he were a woman, but because he wants to, as he is a gay man. This quotation also presents a twist on queer culture; currently, on different forms of social media like Tumblr, many queer individuals use the dialogue of girl vs. boy things to symbolize oppressive gender assignment of children. Since children are compelled to act in accordance with society’s ideals of gender-appropriate behavior, they are unable to do things they may truly love. This discourse is then traditionally used to propose or argue that society must be changed to eradicate these oppressive behaviors. David Sedaris twists this, and instead uses it to make a humorous anecdote that is just that, humorous. Halberstam provides an interesting lens through which Sedaris’ work may be analyzed, but one could argue that Sedaris’ primary concentration is humor instead of making a political point, which contrasts Halberstam’s rather political piece.