for years, i've learned about key pop culture icons and issues through reading bitch magazine, a publication my sister turned me onto when i was younger. i want to make something clear though: this is not something that i'm touting as being awesome. i'm not proud of my lack of pop knowledge. i think pop culture is fascinating! i'm just really, really bad at keeping up.
all of this is really just a disclaimer to the fact that i just became aware of this whole shiloh jolie-pitt gender identity crisis story-line.
what! how did i not know this? someone who probably knows me too well snagged a left-behind tabloid with a nannies reveal on on suri cruise and shiloh jolie-pitt. i'd like to point out that i also learned many other interesting things in this tabloid, like all about prince harry's nudey photos. fascinating.
a moment of catch-up for folks who may also be new to this whole suri and shiloh business. suri is the daughter of the infamous scientologist (and actor?) tom cruise and katie holmes (ahem, joey potter). shiloh is the 'daughter' of angelina jolie and brad pitt. both of these kids are six years old and have been compared to each other for years. moreover, both of these kids, apparently, have some serious issues that will inevitably land them in a therapist's office (according to star magazine and unnamed sources - the best kind of sources). this would be a good place to say that all of 'the information' in this post comes from what i read in the tabloid. it is in no way credible.
the premise of the article i devoured yesterday was that suri and shiloh are both suffering from significant 'abnormalities' which their parents overindulge due to a) their financial ability to and b) their guilt over their inability to spend enough time together. suri and shiloh's 'issues' are laid out and compared, then a "board-certified psychiatrist" chimes in.
suri's problems revolve around an overindulgence of material items. suri has her own credit card. suri has a separate bedroom for her imaginary friends. suri likes to eat off of gold plates. this proclivity for consumerism is compared to shiloh's desire to be a boy. that's right, shiloh's main issue is that 'she' prefers to present as a boy and, in fact, has stated that she wants to be a boy. [note: i'm using female pronouns in quotes for shiloh because i have no way of knowing how shiloh actually identifies but at least want to acknowledge some instability of the feminine]. initially chalked up to imitation of 'her' father, the psychiatrist in the article furthers the analysis of shiloh's troubles by claiming: "only having boy haircuits, wanting to be a boy - that's more than being a tomboy. it's closer to a gender-identity problem" (emphasis mine).
let's review. there are two six year old children of celebrities being compared in this article. they are both presented as having boundary issues. the article states that whatever they want, they get - ie, they are overindulged. for suri, this accounts to lavish material goods. for shiloh, this means not preventing 'her' from dressing in the clothes that feel most comfortable for 'her' identity and engaging in the type of play that 'she' wants. how are these two the same? oh, that's right, they're not.
the article does end by distinguishing between them. one of these issues (unchecked consumerism versus gender exploration) is clearly far worse than the other. according to the board-certified psychiatrist, the answer is obvious. shiloh has deeper problems.
i know, this is a tabloid. however, tabloids are designed to sell. they aim for mass appeal. what does it say about where north american society is at in terms of creating space for gender variance that this is the kind of popular talk around shiloh? why does it even seem appropriate for 'us' to invade this young kid's life and make wildly unfounded conclusions about the potential harm of letting kids explore gender? if anything, i think this article demonstrates that gender is not losing its significance as a category in mainstream north american society. we use gender to understand other people. if we can't immediately identify their gender, that is a problem. how do we know if we can be sexually attracted to them without being gay, for instance? the horror! if we can't identify someone's gender, that is a problem with them (or their parents, as with shiloh), and it should be remedied immediately. that way we can go on our merry way, content in where we stand in this genderist society.
but maybe ask some of us who have worked to understand our gender and the ways that it just cannot fit into the so beloved binaries about what a difference the intentional, active creation of space for gender exploration would have made. i can't speak for everyone and would never try to, so i'll just say that for this genderqueer, it would have been a world of a difference to have had that space. maybe i should have been indulged. maybe it shouldn't have just been about being a tomboy or a girly-girl, which is just another false binary that obscures lived experience. maybe meeting kids where they're at and validating their experience is the key to turning gender identity 'problems' into just gender identities.
