"This book makes the perhaps overly ambitious claim that there is such a thing as “queer time” and “queer space.” Queer uses of time and space develop, at least in part, in opposition to the institutions of family, heterosexuality, and reproduction. They also develop according to other logics of location, movement, and identification. If we try to think about queerness as an outcome of strange temporalities, imaginative life schedules, and eccentric economic practices, we detach queerness from sexual identity and come closer to understanding Foucault’s comment in “Friendship as a Way of Life” that “homosexuality threatens people as a ‘way of life’ rather than as a way of having sex” (310). In Foucault’s radical formulation, queer friendships, queer networks, and the existence of these relations in space and in relation to the use of time mark out the particularity and indeed the perceived menace of homosexual life. In this book, the queer “way of life” will encompass subcultural practices, alternative methods of alliance, forms of transgender embodiment, and those forms of representation dedicated to capturing these willfully eccentric modes of being."

Judith Halberstam, “Queer Temporality and Postmodern Geographies” « caring labor: an archive

SHE RULES/QUEER THEORY RULES/WRITING ABOUT QUEER TEMPORALITY, DELEUZE, AND SADOMASOCHISM FOR THIS PAPER AND THE RESEARCH IS JUST SO REFRESHING AND FUN

(via rhizombie)

j.habs/l.dugs/j.munoz(s?) and their work have been toootally important in shaping how i conceive of value/affect/space/bodies/everything. i am reblobbin this to remind myself but also specifically with my brother in mind. DAN ARE YOU READING THIS, IT’S IMPORTANT

(via pussy-strut)

this book is the best/halberstam spoke at the university of manitoba a couple years ago and it was the best/this book provides useful examples of what I mean when I talk about friendship/you’re not supposed to expect too much of your friends or be too invested but the opposite is true when you queer friendship, expect too much and fail but try to fail together/so should I be super mad at shitty ex-boyfriends (is their failure patriarchy or is their failure queer?)/isn’t it so weird that halberstam spoke at the university of manitoba/yes it is

(via hysteriarama)

Why does theorizing how my friendships are conflicted, desire-ridden 19th century throwbacks and the inherent queerness of such a fact not make them easier to have? 

What Heather Love says:

In the collective effort to undermine a strict division between heterosexuality and homosexuality, queer scholars have looked to models of sexual and gender behavior that exceed the normative bounds of ‘modern gay identity.’ The history of friendship is a particularly attractive archive for the exploration of same-sex relations, partly because of the relative absence of stigma, and partly because of the relatively unstructured nature of friendship as a mode of intimacy.Feeling Backward, pg. 77.

But ALSO there’s an important part right after in this chapter when Love quotes Foucault again on friendship, noting: It’s a desire, an uneasiness, a desire-in-uneasiness that exists among a lot of people.’ Feeling Backward, pg. 78.

On why my romantic friendships are so troubled/troubling I imagine “desire-in-uneasiness” is probably why, which I prefer to “because I make them that way.” 

(via hysteriarama)

Reasons I love the movie Times Square:

1. it’s a coming-of-age story for girls that’s about defiance and autonomy

2. it says there is such a thing as queer girlhood and it can be joyful, volatile, liberating; and that sometimes the safest home is the one you create for yourself.

3. the part where Pammy recites the part of “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” that I love

4. it revealed “restoration” campaigns to re-develop Times Square as what they were: powerful people dismantling a neighborhood that made them uncomfortable. Times Square, as the film shows, with its sex, crime, and neon filth reminded elites of their own slime that their “morality” always tries but of course always fails to eviscerate. In the above scene, the girls say: we are everything you revile, and so are you.

The film depicted a Times Square where people looked out for each other. Needless to say this image contrasts in a pretty disheartening way with the Times Square we have now, where no one looks out for one another because corporations only look out for themselves.

5. it told stories of being a girl and of radical politics together, through each other. Nicki and Pammy’s adventures are heightened with the backdrop of an embattled neighborhood. Likewise, the consequences of the cleanup of Times Square came to light through the knowledge that the neighborhood, among other things, served as a haven for homeless youth like Nicki and Pammy. Coming of age stories can be remarkably isolated from any political discourse—as though girls wouldn’t understand. Times Square rejects that this is the only way to tell it.