Well Now, That's Mighty White of You!

During and after the days of suns not setting on British Empires, British travelers developed a reputation for being particularly mallow-brained regarding their place in the world relative to the places of others. Their operating assumption, it seems, was that they were inherently superior to all others and that this was so fundamental true that they could not possibly be accused of bigotry or phobias of any kind. Their attempts to impose their own cultural views and habits on others were about beneficence rather than domination, you see.

This is a stereotype, of course, and, as many do, has roots in both verity and mythic exaggeration. Flanders and Swann wrote a song about it; like to hear it, hear it go:

A SONG OF PATRIOTIC PREJUDISE

by Flanders and Swann

The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.

The rottenest bits of these islands of ours
We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers
Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot
You'll find he's a stinker, as likely as not.

Och aye, awa' wi' yon Edinburgh Festival

The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware
And bony and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And he hasn't got bishops to show him the way!

The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.

Ah hit me old mother over the head with a shillelagh

The Irishman now our contempt is beneath
He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth
He blows up policemen, or so I have heard
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third!

The English are noble, the English are nice,
And worth any other at double the price

Ah, iechyd da

The Welshman's dishonest and cheats when he can
And little and dark, more like monkey than man
He works underground with a lamp in his hat
And he sings far too loud, far too often, and flat!

And crossing the Channel, one cannot say much
Of French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
The Germans are German, the Russians are red,
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed!

The English are moral, the English are good
And clever and modest and misunderstood.

And all the world over, each nation's the same
They've simply no notion of playing the game
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won
And they practice beforehand which ruins the fun!

The English, the English, the English are best
So up with the English and down with the rest.

It's not that they're wicked or natuarally bad
It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!

For the English are all that a nation should be,
And the flower of the English are Donald - Michael
Donald - Michael... and Me!

This blind-eyed innocence outdoes any bull in any shop, Chinese or otherwise. In our American enthusiasm, we've gripped the concept with both hands, our teeth, and a dab of Gorilla Glue (apologies to said sticky stuff's manufacturers who have no idea I've just used their product's name, much less that I did so for it's sound rather than its specific meaning). We apply it willy nilly to foreign policy and domestic practices. Most recently, I found it at eHarmony and I'd like to share.

I was interested to learn whether or not eHarmony matched same sex couples as well as straight couples. I thought that if, in fact, they'd aimed their purportedly prodigious matching enging at both kinds of couples, they would be genuine leaders in the commercial dating industry rather than just a new kid on the block featuring a comfy grandpa spokesman who is not in the least sexually threatening. So, I looked to eHarmony's FAQ section where I found the very question I had in mind.

I'd like to point out, as an aside, that I think this is the very first time I have ever found a canned FAQ that actually matched the question held in my own mind. It's nice to be able to congratulate them on that coup in advance of eviscerating them for the friendly, if hatefully ignorant, answer to said question.

Without further ado, here it is in its entirety:

Does eHarmony do same sex matching?

eHarmony does not offer same sex matching services. We're sorry if the placement of recent advertising led you to believe that we offer this service. eHarmony's matching system is designed to match highly compatible men and women who are seeking a successful long-term relationship. Our ongoing research has examined thousands of married couples to determine what factors predict the greatest degree of success in the marriage relationship.

Based on over 35 years of clinical practice and empirical study, eHarmony has discovered what similarities and differences between men and women lead to their most successful unions. This unprecedented research into compatibility has been conducted with the goal of lowering the rate of unsuccessful marriages and divorce by providing singles with a tool for finding truly compatible matches with whom to pursue a relationship. With this goal in mind, eHarmony's research has only examined heterosexual relationships.

Now, here's the thing: I've got no beef with them choosing to only work with heterosexual relationships. Truly it's their call. I've also got no beef with them saying, "Dude. There is so much research involved in creating this matching stuff that so far we've only done it for straight couples. We don't know whether or not we'll ever extend that to same-sex couples." The part I don't like is the how of the language used to communicate the information.

To me, it reads like a not-especially-subtle slap. You see, eHarmony is only focusing on long-term relationships with the goal of improving the success rates of marriages and so, of course, same-sex relationships are not relevant to their mission. Let's not consider the abundance of long-term monogamous queer relationships, much less the fact that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and that civil unions are available in Vermont, or that some provinces and countries outside of the U.S. include same sex marriages and unions, including our neighbor to the North.

What gets me is the institutionalization of exclusion. The idea that the cultural habit of NOT including same-sex relationships is so obvious that defending it is like explaining to a toddler why she should not stick her hand into a pot of boiling water: ridiculous and trying, requiring finesse such that the condescension won't embarrass the person delivering it.

I realize that I'm making more of this than is probably consciously there and that eHarmony was probably only trying to make a gentle point while spinning out another repetition of its value proposition and marketing messages. But describing how thorough and excellent your process is while telling someone you don't include them based upon the chromosomes of their potential mates is a bit more let-them-eat-cake (and yes, I do know that this is one of the most misquoted statements of Western history ... I'm employing its common usage) than I can bear to witness silently.

eHarmony, you're bringing in enough cash now to rent a clue, even briefly. Exclude me now, exclude forever--I don't care because I'm not particularly interested in using a dating service to begin with. But please just be plain about it. Don't passively undermine the dignity of queer people by justifying yourself with the kind of imperialistic twaddle that landed more than one Englishman in someone's cooking pot. Being part of the dominant culture doesn't mean that you are smarter, wiser, better, more legitimate, or more able. It just means that you are part of a larger population and/or that you rest upon habits of assumption and influence. Please don't mistake your privilege overalls for a soul tuxedo.

There. Now that I've come up with a truly horrid ending simile, I think I can bring this to an end. (...That was a simile, wasn't it?)

;)

Copyright 2004 Seasmoke All rights reserved