Punctuation is Key

There is more lurking about the subways these days than bag-searching cops looking for terrorists. What is that? Pen-wielding taggers who have no respect for the importance of punctuation.

I was following my back-up plan on the morning commute one day last week, which has me transferring at Union Square to the 6 when I'm pressed for time. As I walked alongside the tracks, or, rather, the cliff that leads to the tracks, I was struck by a confusing statement that could have been cleared up if only a semi-colon or comma had been used. Written on a ceramic brick pillar in blue felt-tip pen, the statement read: "Lesbians are taking over niggas better watchout"

Here it is in all its illiteracy. Unfortunately, by the time I could get back there and take the picture, some letters had been rubbed off.

There are many problems with this, and I'd like to address a few here. First I will argue that "watchout" is not an acceptable version of the intransitive verb construction. It appears in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, but I don't care. Put a space in there. Moving on.

Now are the lesbians "taking over niggas" or are the lesbians "taking over" and so "niggas better watchout"? Let's take a closer look. When I read it, I first took it to be the former. That "lesbians are taking over niggas." But that doesn't make sense; a simple semi-colon between the words "over" and "niggas" would have cleared it up, and I'm sure that's what the writer intended.

Some sort of punctuation at the end would have been nice, as well. The writer is culturally illiterate; this much we know. His cover is further blown, then, because, going with this structure, we are to believe that lesbians will rule over "niggas." But is this political rule or sexual rule? Both? I doubt this confusion is what the writer intended, which is another argument for a semi-colon. The other way makes more sense to me, and it more clearly establishes the writer as the homophobic coward that he is, rather than the paranoid one that the other construction implies.

Imagine for a minute that there is some sort of punctuation (at this point anything will do). What we have then is what the writer actually meant to express, which is that "niggas better watch out" because "lesbians are taking over." But what are lesbians taking over? Are they simply taking over everything, including but not limited to the economic and political structures in the U.S. or are they engaged in a global takeover; clothing styles; radio stations; theatre; New York? I doubt the writer meant any of these given the lack of intelligence he has. So it's probably pretty safe to assume that he meant that lesbians are taking over women.

But again, here we find ourselves in a bit of a bind. Is this "women" in general or black women, specifically? I won't make an assumption about this point and will therefore explore both possibilities. First of all, this implies that a) there are no black lesbians and b) black women are the property of black men and therefore need to be protected from the army of lesbian marauders poised for a "takeover."

But then what is meant by "black" if, in fact, this is what the writer meant but failed to get across? Does it refer to those who live in the U.S. and count U.S. slaves as their ancestors? Or does it also include other people who consider themselves "black": women from Africa, South and Central America, the Caribbean, etc.? All of these questions make me think about this writer.

Perhaps his girlfriend dumped him for a woman. It's happened. Often, "straight" women will find themselves intrigued by other women and will often do a little dabbling. I've unfortunately crossed the path of a few. (But this isn't about me, is it?)

This raises an interesting issue, though: It's acceptable for two "feminine-appearing" women to be together. To stroke one another on the dance floor. It's acceptable for them to step out on their men for a time to see what it's like on the other side. Because if she "looks like a woman" then it's hot, according to some men, and these same men believe that the act is solely for their benefit. We know this.

What's happening here, then, is that these "lesbians" to which the writer refers are marked as such. They are visibly lesbians, such as myself, whose most identifiable traits are recognizable as masculine. And, therefore, I think it's safe to conclude that butches are the ones this writer fears. The ones who provoked this vitriolic vandalism.

But lesbians are women, which is another problem the writer failed to address. He has with this comment erased the sexual agency women have, thus rendering them helpless against would-be predators. Lesbian predators, that is. His fear is predicated on the fact that lesbians are sexual beings who will "take over" sexually, i.e. step in and overtake unsuspecting damsels on their way to power. But if he meant that lesbians are taking over, then one can't ignore the fact that this means they'll be taking over themselves, because, well, lesbians are women.

From this, one can assume that the writer believes "hot" ones are okay, and most definitely are women. Further, he believes that "hot" ones, in addition to being "acceptable" versions of "woman," are not truly lesbians, because they're acceptable versions of "woman." But the other ones, the butches the writer seems to be talking about, are not "real women" and are therefore those lesbians to which he refers who have no physical or emotional need for men. This is one sentiment circulating through the small brains of the particularly culturally retarded.

Now, if we are to take butches as this man's target, it might good to briefly look into what he could be reacting to. If we are to believe that he does not think butches are "real women," then we are forced to ask, then, what are they? Smart people know the answer to this, but this man is not of that ilk and therefore we should consider his alternative mode of thought.

If they're not real women, which, again is what I believe he must think, then they must be woefully inadequate versions of men. This notion pervades much of the homophobic rhetoric that exists not only in this man's world, but also, sadly, in the gay world. So it would seem that he is actually copping to his inability to deal with his in(fear)iority complex concerning his masculinity. Butches are, in fact, women whose gender expression is masculine. But they are not trying to be men, nor do they walk around trying to co-opt a male identity.

This is lost on the writer who most likely believes that butches are trying to be men, and part of that includes an attempt to "take over" "their women." But it doesn't end here. I hate to beat a dead race horse, but not all of us are white. Black masculinity. Those of us in this category carry by virtue of our skin color another bag whose weight rests on the fear of the black and Latino male.

I think we can safely assume that this writer was sounding a warning to black men everywhere that they should protect their women -- black and otherwise, let's just say -- from preying lesbians (read, butch) bent on taking over something. I still can't be sure if it's the world or simply the women he is afraid of losing control over. The "better watchout" aspect of his warning does imply that he does believe he has control over something.

What exactly, a black man in the United States has control over, though, is beyond me. The writer's target, I argue, is the butch of color. Our existence threatens his masculinity, the very thing for which he relies on for a place in this world.