401K Fierce
TNG contributor and commenter, Joey Bahamas, who describes himself as a 22-year-old black, gay, Bahamian, Marxist, Aquarian, activist, writer, scholar, sartorialist, bohemian, and drunkard living in DC, contrasts his own fiscal definition of fierce with that of the modern gays'.
Every other Friday I fight a war; this coming Friday will be no exception. For the most part, by the time I get my non-profit pay check it’s already spent—a prime example that (in this world) good deeds often cost more than they pay. The war is fought over what’s left after Verizon, the gym, my landlord and every other service rendering, product providing creature that has weaseled its way into my monthly budget. I am left with only two choices: I can be fierce or I can be responsible. For a long time fierce has won out, but no more.
So much of who we are as gay men has to do with image. Maybe it’s because for extended periods in many of our lives we did everything in our power to make the world believe that we were something that we were not. I’m talking to those of us who did everything in our power to look, act and be straight. Old habits die hard, so focusing on image may just be something we’re use to do doing. Or maybe as men we are just more naturally inclined to give greater importance to how something or someone looks. In short, maybe we’re naturally superficial. Whatever it is, I think we can universally agree that gay men can be very image obsessed, and that such an obsession has repercussions throughout our lives.
“Gym-rats,” the “no fats, no femmes” movement; these are obvious ways image obsession has manifested in our community. Beyond the gay enclave, Tyra Banks and Christian Siriano have led a modern day crusade to make the term “fierce” a part of the mainstream, and even the straights don’t believe that you’re a real gay unless you’re “fierce”. Image is so important to us that some of us go to great lengths to create superficial realities of who we are, despite our inability to afford those realities.
Think about it. How many of you know a gaggle of gays crammed into a studio apartment in Logan or Dupont Circle just so they can say they live in Logan or Dupont Circle? Or, what about that friend that spends hundreds of dollars at the club on the weekend but can barely pay for lunch during the week? Then there’s my favorite, you know, the label-queen with the newest garments that can’t seem to scrape up enough money to leave their parents basement?
This is something I’m seeing pretty regularly with gays my age, the 18-25 group (just to be clear). From the house kids, to the club kids, to the 14th and P kids; dinning at the best restaurants, being at the choicest clubs and wearing the most expensive pieces are what some have their sights on, leaving much of the rest of their lives out of focus. Being fierce is expensive, and for some of us it’s out of reach.
Personally, this signals a desperate need for us to take a look at how and why we prioritize things in the gay community the way we do. Fierceness or the act of being fierce, has a unique and—in my opinion—dangerous focus on the present, particularly for those who can’t afford it. Looking good, being seen at the hottest spots, and living in the most exclusive neighborhood has a lot to do with the now, and can leave little time to shape, plan or fund one’s future. With unaffordable health care and housing, strained Social Security and Medicare systems, and without the protection of marriage, growing older for LGBT people can be a scary and treacherous road to travel especially if we can’t afford to protect ourselves.
That’s really what my every-other-Friday fight is about. Who will get the last few coins I have left post bill collection? Will it be Barney’s Co-Op or my 401K? In recent days I have taken the responsible path and continued to siphon most of my money into my savings and 401K accounts at the cost of my wardrobe and social life. In honor of this bold new step toward my best interest, I’ve decided to fight for my own little piece of the “fierce” brand. I think the queen that saves should be considered just as fierce as the queen that shops. And, I believe that the size of my 401K is more an indicator of my fierceness than the size of my bar tab. So, on the days I can’t afford to be fierce-fierce, I’m “401K fierce” because honestly I couldn’t see not being fierce every single day.
16 comments:
Honey, in today's market, that 401k contribution is like throwing money down the toilet.
nice points, but i hardly think this kind of financial irresponsibility is exclusive to the gay community.
Your post has inspired (or just reminded) me to check the balances on my checking account and credit card. Debt definitely equals un-fierce.
Though, generally, I just strive for "me." Luckily, that's pretty inexpensive.
GREAT article...it amazes me how SO many of we gay men and women spin our wheels on a daily only to left with nothing more than what we started with...
All the money you're putting in is buy stocks/funds at bargain basement prices... eventually, we'll be ahead again.
That's what the pigs on Wall Street want you to believe, anyway.
As a marxist, how can you contribute to the exploitation of the hardworking workers by buying stocks, thereby fueling the pressure of the bourgeoisie to squeeze further unrealistic returns from each of them?
;-)
We live in a consumerist nation. Think back to the stimulus checks we received earlier this year. We were asked to spend it. One problem is that we got into this mess by spending money we could not afford to spend. A reason that many cannot afford what they spend is that real wages have not been going up. We need a living wage. Minimum wage is a big disgrace if you believe in economic justice. Additionally, we are literally sold the American Dream over and over again. Low middle-class and working class people were offered predatory loans that took advantage of their dreams to own a home. Of course, many of those folks were of color. Yes, many of the people who received these loans should have not taken them. Then again, can we really blame people who take bad loans if it is their only hope of accessing a big part of the American Dream? When we are deprived of something for so long we at times desperately reach for it when the opportunity comes our way. Futhermore, we should not forget that financial institutions went after this group. They were hoping to bank on their customers' vulnerability without care of the ramifications of their actions. I hope that in this crisis we as nation begin to think about economic justice and our obsession with capitalism.
Doubtless I'm preaching to the choir, but haven't we all learned by now that our real friends will socialise with us anywhere, regardless of what we're wearing? I live a long way outside DC and have only really bought two articles of clothing in the past 3-4 years, but I still have an active social life.
Amid the assault of economic horror stories of late -- entire towns collapsing, 750-home megadevelopments sitting vacant, the most severe downturn in new-home construction in four billion years, Marc Jacobs forced to cancel both the gold-dipped male strippers and his entire Christmas party -- I happened across a fascinating tidbit of blasphemous wisdom from an economist whose name I forget and whose article vanished into my brainpan almost instantly, but who dared to reiterate a grand and forbidden truth.
It's this: Owning your own home is, for the most part, just a little bit insane.
Wait, no, that's not exactly right. His comment was more along the lines of: The hard fact is, at any given time, no more than about 50 percent of the American population should own their own homes, at the very most. Everyone else should rent. Or live in a van.
It just makes more sense. He argued that any more than 50 percent ownership -- the current rate is about 85 percent for married couples with kids and 70 percent for everyone overall -- is fiscally irrational, actually does more harm than good to the economy, and that millions of Americans who own right now would've been far better off never buying at all (and not merely because all the foreclosures and lending debacles).
Could it be true? That maybe a large part of our current housing woes are at least somewhat attributable to this borderline pathological need so many of us have to go into massive debt for the majority of our adult lives, just so you can have your own little box to destroy or rearrange or paint any color you want, so long as it's beige or gray or creamy eggshell white? Could be, could be.
Just before lightning struck him dead on the spot for daring to question one of the Great American Commandments, the economist concluded that that maybe this housing meltdown will, among other upheavals, teach millions of Americans a radical new truth: that buying a house is no more a prerequisite to achieving the American Dream than is, say, opening your own steakhouse or marrying a porn star or hoarding piles of stock in GM.
Actually, as a lifetime city dweller/renter myself, I've heard it for years; renting is often better than buying. That when you sit down and crunch the numbers and factor in all the taxes and dues and interest rates, maintenance fees and termites and cracked foundations and busted appliances and the cost of that new sewage line, well, owning is far more of a hassle and a burden and a lifetime o' stress than most people ever imagine.
And why don't we imagine it? Why is owning a home still considered such a prize, such a cornerstone of what it means to be a victorious American? Simple: because that's what we're taught.
It's tattooed into our psyches from birth that a successful society absolutely depends on community, nesting, home ownership to survive and flourish. It's one of the three Grand Directives of Socioeconomic Health, right after getting married and having kids (or, if you're feeling cynical, you add: Get divorce, sell house, resent kids, die alone in Florida. Gosh, you're bitter).
Follow these directives well, good citizen, and get your reward, straight from the government and the approving church down the street. Tax incentives, write-offs, free credit, equity buildup, blessings from God himself. Choose to rent for your whole life and move around a bit and never breed? You get nothing, sinner.
It's true. To defy any of these rules of "healthy" society is not only punishable by banishment from the Garden of Normalcy, but it's widely considered just a bit ... immoral. Live together without marriage? A sin. Birth control? Still a sin (such a cute one, too). Renting instead of buying? OK, not technically a sin, but to never feel a need to buy a home because you enjoy being fluid and experimental and transitory? Sure. Something is clearly wrong with you. Better go live on a commune in Marin, hippie.
I can't count how many friends I've known over the years who say they absolutely love living in the city, but as soon as they get married and/or have a child, something clicks and their eyes get that look, and suddenly they decide they must move to suburban Ohio because, you know, "that's where we can afford to buy a house." See? Pathological.
(Of course, there are many other very important factors at play: space for the kids, tolerable schools, lower taxes, safer neighborhoods, fewer bullet casings and used condoms in the sidewalk, and so on. I get it. But this only explains the need to get out of the City. It still doesn't explain the urge to buy.)
Here's the new wisdom: Social demographics are changing. Family dynamics are shifting. The new data reveals that we are an increasingly fluid, itinerant culture, no longer nearly as rooted to specific towns and neighborhoods as we were 50 years ago. The swell, rose-colored Norman Rockwell image of Americana, all porch swings and free parking and kids riding Big Wheels on the sidewalk next to neighbors who've lived on the street since the Eisenhower administration? Fading fast, if it ever really existed at all.
It's not easy to unpack. It's not easy to see the new perspective. For one thing, homes can be tremendously cool. I imagine designing your own to be the most gratifying form of self-expression, while providing a vital connection to place.
What's more, renting goes directly against our capitalist ethos. People like to own stuff, Americans especially so. Especially Americans who still have a sense of entitlement like no other species on the planet today except maybe Saudi sheiks and celebrity Chihuahuas and Mary J. Blige.
I've often felt the pull myself, have noticed that significant part of me that admires beautiful architecture and design, and often wants very much to invest in a beautiful space of my own and have the freedom to do with it what I want, some sort of gorgeous Dwell magazine fantasia that requires about three million and a revolving account at Roche Bobois. Someday, someday.
But it's certainly worth reconsidering. It's worth pondering that, in this time of tremendous upheaval and mandatory change, maybe we've been thinking about our identity, about the required ingredients for the American Dream, all wrong. And maybe owning a home, right along with buying an American car, is one of the great myths that's overdue for a revolution.
It appears that the above comment attributed to Mark Mortford is actually a column published in the San Francisco Chronicle, dated November 21.
I'm not sure if the original author posted it here as a comment, or someone else, but such comments should be attributed to the source.
If it was indeed posted by Mr. Mortford, he's encouraged to contact us at info@thenewgay.net.
Oh, and btw, the Mark Morford piece above is an awful argument. He mixes the own vs. rent argument with the urban vs. suburban argument. Most of his rationale for renting involve staying in the city. He ignores the option of owning an apartment (condo or co-op) in the city which gives you the best of both worlds: benefits of home ownership plus the benefits of urban living.
I'm not sure the article was written for the urban gay man, but it's actually a very good argument for reconsidering the decision to buy a home or rent one (a condo or co/op is still ownership). Most of his rationale for renting is based upon thorough examination of the reason(s) one would choose to buy in the first place given the ongoing outlay of cash versus the amount of time most people actually stay in their home before moving on. The author is more detached, or 'academically objective' than the average person that wants to buy a home, but he's got a terrific point.
The "benefits" of home ownership are often negated by the concomitant liabilities over time if one is concerned about money. Assuming your home will increase in value and maintain that value (or at least remain above the purchase price) during whatever period of time you own it is speculative. It's no more than a stock certificate at that point.
I'd wager most urban gay men don't purchase a home in any city intending to live there for the rest of their lives. Time, from the most rigid practical standpoint really is the only reason to own a home. Any significant gains from a short holding period is luck or an opportunistic seller. Know anyone that sold a home for their cost basis when the market valued it much higher?
The urban vs suburban argument is a straight family thing. I'm sure you know, oftentimes the decision to buy is intertwined with kids and deciding to leaving the city; urban living isn't usually a benefit for the middle class family (ugh I hate using that term)--especially not in this city. As the author states: (Of course, there are many other very important factors at play: space for the kids, tolerable schools, lower taxes, safer neighborhoods, fewer bullet casings and used condoms in the sidewalk, and so on. I get it. But this only explains the need to get out of the City. It still doesn't explain the urge to buy.)
In response to the original post, good points for those willing to listen, there are lots of immature people--intellectual or emotional. Fiscal responsibility comes to some later rather than sooner, if at all but I have faith in my super stylish Prada clad brethren. Although I'm tired of lending them money till payday.... :)
Interesting piece. I'm so NOT fierce I am happily renting a cheap apartment down in Tampa Florida! We don't take any of it with us when we die anyhow :P From my own personal experience, this reminds me of a lot of my friends that have left to rent rat infested tiny apartments in Brooklyn...just to say they live there.
People want to say they live in Brooklyn?
Brooklyn is somewhat the Shaw equivalent for New York City.
For us Generation Yers who do not have sugar daddies or mamas, Brooklyn is the new queer place to be so I have heard.
Excellent! God Bless ya!!!
Post a Comment