This is the time of year that gets the busiest for me; the days leading up to the opening of the buildings and moreso the start of the academic year. Although the halls opening has much less impact on my job than getting ready for class does and the return of the faculty causes me more work than the return of the RAs, this time nonetheless is exceptionally busy for me. This year should prove to be exceptionally moreso; it will be a matter of picking out my priorities and focusing on them and ignoring that which doesn't get done simply because there weren't enough hours in a day.
Of course, one of those priorities must be my relationship with Peter, whose job just never seems to get done. We are looking forward to some time together later this Fall, but our anniversary time was severely cut into this year by the demands of both our jobs. We got in some QT, but it just wasn't enough, plus we're both exhausted right now.
That exhaustion does worry me for Peter's health. I'm convinced it played a major part in his profound illness back in March. And our now-former doctor failed to adequately explore what exactly caused it all, in my opinion. We finally found a really good doctor today, one who understands the issues of two gay men and one who, more importantly, seemed interested and caring in his approach. He's far away from us (a good 30 minutes using the interstate) but I think he'll be worth it. This has given me no small piece of mind; do not underestimate the importance of a good doc.
The frustration with the past-doc definitely raised the issue as to why exactly she failed to provide an adequate level of care. Although I never got an anti-gay vibe from her, the question of course popped into both of our heads. It's a shame, really, to have to even consider the possibility. Being white men, it's easy for us to forget the world of priviledge we belong to and how we get by most days without thinking about if we got shafted because of who we are. It is the consequence of being completely out (and I wouldn't have it any other way) that we do sometimes run into the wall of subordinate membership. We may not have been discriminated against, but maybe we did and I hate even thinking about it. I've had this conversation several times with black friends: they don't want to think that they second-hand treatment (or worse) simply because of their race; they don't want to play the race card, yet it's hard not to wonder. And when that pattern becomes repeated, then obviously something is going on here.
My experience is that reasonable people seek reasonable answers. Even when the reasonable answer is, yes, we live in a society that oppresses certain groups daily, usually in the most subtle, unnoticed, or underhanded ways, most reasonable people belonging to a subordinate group look for another reason. Most people want to believe the best of their fellow person, yet the spectre of reality, the reality of institutionalized -isms is lurking right over their shoulder. It whispers about the shadow side of human behavior. And that whisper is impossible to ignore. Some people hear this whisper daily, others, like myself, less frequently. I want to be the reasonable person; I hope I am right in being so.
Nonetheless, being out is an important decision, especially being out to your doctor. Here's a good article about making that decision and how to find the right doctor. GLMA (the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) is an invaluable resource for our community. We found our new doctor, whom we are estatic with, through this resource.
We now return you to our regular programming...
Peter's and my relationship has never been more important to us than it is right now; never more alive or central. It's become something that's far deeper than I ever anticipated. I always thought the heady rush that accompanies that initial puppy love stage and stays with you for months even was where it was at. I mourned the loss of that feeling. But what I feel now is far more compelling, important, and ingrained to my being. It's impossible to imagine him not in my life, not with me. It's not just a desire to not be lonely - it's about him. No other substitute is possible, even conceivable. It doesn't mean we're the perfect couple. Certainly we still fuss and fight, but the connection, which at times felt breakable in the past, isn't part of the equation any more.
In regards to other priorities, this blog will take a bit of a back seat unless something really rattles my cage or I suddenly find less work to do (not likely)!
Monday, August 07, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
Positively Interesting
Right now I'm really immersed in the Gallup Organization's research on talent and excellence. They have combined this research with an emerging field called positive psychology, which instead of studying what is wrong with people, studies what is right with people.
It sounds all a bit Pollyanna-ish and Norman Vincent Peale-ish, but it tries really hard to avoid that and is rooted not just in theory, but actual studies of people who are the best (and the average) of what they do. Gallup is really interested in what distinguishes your average joe versus the best of the best.
Gallup has found that what makes excellence (at least in the workplace) is a strong match between a person's job and their talents. A talent, for Gallup, is any recurring thought, feeling, or behavior that can be constructively applied.
Gallup distinguishes talent from skill, which are those things that can be taught (like how to fill out a database or spreadsheet) and knowledge, which are those things you know from experience or being taught/reading. Talent, on the other hand, cannot be taught. They can be sharpened into strengths, but because they are innate to who you are, they can't be changed. For instance, if you aren't empathic (the ability to feel what others are feeling - the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), then no amount of training or practice will turn you into a strong empath. You can learn some skills that will improve how empathic you are, but likely you will always have to think very purposefully about those things (what your posture is, what nonverbals to look for, make sure to listen to voice rate, pitch, tone, etc.) and you may even funtion at a decent level of empathy, but it will never come naturally and spontaneously to you. It will never be as fulfilling to you as other things you are more talented at doing.
And, you can "not do it." Your talents are things that you can't not do.
All of this setup to say, therefore, I loved the following quote that was the signature in an email I received from a staff member of Leadershape:
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit."
--Aristotle
Apparently this stuff has been around for a lot longer than we realized!
It sounds all a bit Pollyanna-ish and Norman Vincent Peale-ish, but it tries really hard to avoid that and is rooted not just in theory, but actual studies of people who are the best (and the average) of what they do. Gallup is really interested in what distinguishes your average joe versus the best of the best.
Gallup has found that what makes excellence (at least in the workplace) is a strong match between a person's job and their talents. A talent, for Gallup, is any recurring thought, feeling, or behavior that can be constructively applied.
Gallup distinguishes talent from skill, which are those things that can be taught (like how to fill out a database or spreadsheet) and knowledge, which are those things you know from experience or being taught/reading. Talent, on the other hand, cannot be taught. They can be sharpened into strengths, but because they are innate to who you are, they can't be changed. For instance, if you aren't empathic (the ability to feel what others are feeling - the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), then no amount of training or practice will turn you into a strong empath. You can learn some skills that will improve how empathic you are, but likely you will always have to think very purposefully about those things (what your posture is, what nonverbals to look for, make sure to listen to voice rate, pitch, tone, etc.) and you may even funtion at a decent level of empathy, but it will never come naturally and spontaneously to you. It will never be as fulfilling to you as other things you are more talented at doing.
And, you can "not do it." Your talents are things that you can't not do.
All of this setup to say, therefore, I loved the following quote that was the signature in an email I received from a staff member of Leadershape:
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit."
--Aristotle
Apparently this stuff has been around for a lot longer than we realized!
Friday, July 07, 2006
A Necessary Set Back?
I've surprised myself by taking the New York Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage pretty hard. I honestly hadn't thought much about it, considering it well out of my realm of being able to do anything about it. And although I wasn't certain about the chances of success there, I certainly thought that same-sex marriage had a better chance of being upheld as being legal and in accordance with New York State constitution than not. But, what I think hurts the most is the language and rationale behind the judges which suggests that they cowed to political or public pressure.
The word "sexual preference" over "orientation" was used by at least one judge and a portion of the ruling seems to suggest that gay marriage disrupts traditional heterosexual marriage and that is needed to stabilize the currently shaky state of affairs in many straight relationships. I swear I'm not making this up! According to the New York Times:
In particular, they noted one section suggesting heterosexual couples need marriage to be preserved as a way to shore up their faulty relationships and protect their children who might suffer in broken-home situations.
"It's a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak argument: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples," Mr. [David Buckel, head counsel for Lambda Legal] said.
To quote Jon Stewart, "muwa-huh?" I've never understood how giving same-sex couples legal protections impedes on traditional marriage. The idea of preserving something that won't be going anywhere is highly illogical to me.
I'm also greatly pained thinking about the gloating that several right-wing groups are going to be doing for a while now. They'll certainly take the opportunity to say that this is a message/signal/sign that God/America/People with SUV's isn't going to stand for gay marriage. This decision has already been called the Gettysberg of gay marriage. I'm just going to have to not watch TV for a while because I just don't want to hear it.
If anything, I think the clear message here is that we must work on changing laws by working through legislators and winning over individuals and communities (which, by and large, is done individually). It's more difficult, it's a much harder journey, and it requires more sacrifice. It requires gay and lesbian people to be more out and open and expressive about our lives. We must speak up and out to our family and friends about this issue. It's not easy; I find it very difficult to do with my own parents. But trying to win through the courts is not working by and large. Yes, we've had some victories, and yes, we did it through the legislative process in California and got sent to the courts by a coward and a snake. But people are resenting the victories in the court and it's giving ammunition to our opponents.
Although it's easy to get depressed and tired from set backs like this, I hope it leads the advocacy groups to re-think their strategies and re-prioritize to make them even more impactful and effective. For my fellow gay American, I hope it makes us more willing to share our lives with the people around and to express how deserving we are of the legal protections our straight friends and co-workers share.
The word "sexual preference" over "orientation" was used by at least one judge and a portion of the ruling seems to suggest that gay marriage disrupts traditional heterosexual marriage and that is needed to stabilize the currently shaky state of affairs in many straight relationships. I swear I'm not making this up! According to the New York Times:
In particular, they noted one section suggesting heterosexual couples need marriage to be preserved as a way to shore up their faulty relationships and protect their children who might suffer in broken-home situations.
"It's a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak argument: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples," Mr. [David Buckel, head counsel for Lambda Legal] said.
To quote Jon Stewart, "muwa-huh?" I've never understood how giving same-sex couples legal protections impedes on traditional marriage. The idea of preserving something that won't be going anywhere is highly illogical to me.
I'm also greatly pained thinking about the gloating that several right-wing groups are going to be doing for a while now. They'll certainly take the opportunity to say that this is a message/signal/sign that God/America/People with SUV's isn't going to stand for gay marriage. This decision has already been called the Gettysberg of gay marriage. I'm just going to have to not watch TV for a while because I just don't want to hear it.
If anything, I think the clear message here is that we must work on changing laws by working through legislators and winning over individuals and communities (which, by and large, is done individually). It's more difficult, it's a much harder journey, and it requires more sacrifice. It requires gay and lesbian people to be more out and open and expressive about our lives. We must speak up and out to our family and friends about this issue. It's not easy; I find it very difficult to do with my own parents. But trying to win through the courts is not working by and large. Yes, we've had some victories, and yes, we did it through the legislative process in California and got sent to the courts by a coward and a snake. But people are resenting the victories in the court and it's giving ammunition to our opponents.
Although it's easy to get depressed and tired from set backs like this, I hope it leads the advocacy groups to re-think their strategies and re-prioritize to make them even more impactful and effective. For my fellow gay American, I hope it makes us more willing to share our lives with the people around and to express how deserving we are of the legal protections our straight friends and co-workers share.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Common Sense Christian
I really like this woman....
Episcopal News Service
Sunday, June 18, 2006
From Columbus: Jefferts Schori's 'Reign of God'
By Pat McCaughan
[ENS] Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori's vision to lead the Episcopal Church comes straight out of the prophet Isaiah's vision of the reign of God and includes such United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as eradicating poverty and hunger.
"The poor are fed, the good news is preached, those who are ostracized and in prison are set free, the blind receive sight," Jefferts Schori said June 18 during her first news conference after her election.
The Presiding Bishop-elect fielded questions on topics as wide-ranging as creationism, human sexuality, her call to the priesthood and why she became an airplane pilot.
Elected to the 2.4 million member church's top post on Father's Day, Jefferts Schori said she became a pilot after her father promised her flying lessons if she completed college. "I flew as recently as last Saturday ... a Cessna 172," she said.
She drew upon her experiences as an oceanographer when asked how she'd reconcile with those who oppose her ordination and episcopate. While researching the living habits of worms, squid, octopus and shrimp 30 years ago, "a cruise captain wouldn't talk to me because I was a woman," she recalled. "That lasted about 15 minutes. We got over it."
"My training as a scientist has given me the gift of looking at the world carefully, and investigating. I take delight in the incredible diversity of creation, delighting in the view from several thousand feet above the earth."
When a reporter asked how the "average Anglican who is a black woman under 30, earns two dollars a day and is evangelical," might react to news of her consecration and to her consent to Gene Robinson's consecration, she responded: "If the average Anglican is as you describe, she is dealing with hunger, inadequate housing, unclean water and unavailability of education. Those are the places I would start. The issue of sexuality comes along much higher on the hierarchy of needs."
About creationism and evolution, she said: "Evolution most definitely should be taught in school. It's a well-tested premise and the best model that fits the data available. Creationism can't make that claim. I believe in the creeds. They say God created the world, but they don't say how."
About homosexuality, she said: "I believe that God welcomes all to his table, those who agree and those who disagree. The Episcopal Church always has been a strong voice for including a variety of opinions; the marginalized are welcomed at the table."
-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is senior correspondent for ENS and serves as associate rector at St. Mary's Church in Laguna Beach, California.
Episcopal News Service
Sunday, June 18, 2006
From Columbus: Jefferts Schori's 'Reign of God'
By Pat McCaughan
[ENS] Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori's vision to lead the Episcopal Church comes straight out of the prophet Isaiah's vision of the reign of God and includes such United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as eradicating poverty and hunger.
"The poor are fed, the good news is preached, those who are ostracized and in prison are set free, the blind receive sight," Jefferts Schori said June 18 during her first news conference after her election.
The Presiding Bishop-elect fielded questions on topics as wide-ranging as creationism, human sexuality, her call to the priesthood and why she became an airplane pilot.
Elected to the 2.4 million member church's top post on Father's Day, Jefferts Schori said she became a pilot after her father promised her flying lessons if she completed college. "I flew as recently as last Saturday ... a Cessna 172," she said.
She drew upon her experiences as an oceanographer when asked how she'd reconcile with those who oppose her ordination and episcopate. While researching the living habits of worms, squid, octopus and shrimp 30 years ago, "a cruise captain wouldn't talk to me because I was a woman," she recalled. "That lasted about 15 minutes. We got over it."
"My training as a scientist has given me the gift of looking at the world carefully, and investigating. I take delight in the incredible diversity of creation, delighting in the view from several thousand feet above the earth."
When a reporter asked how the "average Anglican who is a black woman under 30, earns two dollars a day and is evangelical," might react to news of her consecration and to her consent to Gene Robinson's consecration, she responded: "If the average Anglican is as you describe, she is dealing with hunger, inadequate housing, unclean water and unavailability of education. Those are the places I would start. The issue of sexuality comes along much higher on the hierarchy of needs."
About creationism and evolution, she said: "Evolution most definitely should be taught in school. It's a well-tested premise and the best model that fits the data available. Creationism can't make that claim. I believe in the creeds. They say God created the world, but they don't say how."
About homosexuality, she said: "I believe that God welcomes all to his table, those who agree and those who disagree. The Episcopal Church always has been a strong voice for including a variety of opinions; the marginalized are welcomed at the table."
-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is senior correspondent for ENS and serves as associate rector at St. Mary's Church in Laguna Beach, California.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Achieving Your Potential
I'm a Gallup Groupie. I have become fascinated and slavishly enthralled to the Gallup Organization's literature on recognizing talent and strength and, relatedly, how to create an environment in an organization that creates the greatest outcomes for the organization. (That, not coincidentially, is tied to providing a good working environment for the members of the organization.) The book dealing with the organizational setting is First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently
. It's a fascinating subject and I fully recommend that you read it if you manage people. But today I want to tackle a specific element of the Twelve Questions that resulted in the book Now, Discover your Strengths. This book is about discovering and developing your natural talents.
This is all based around research that Gallup conducted approximately 10-12 years ago. Gallup found that people who were considered the best of the best in their profession (and this included people in all different types of positions: policemen, managers, housekeepers, teachers, lawyers, customer service representatives, etc.) no matter what their age, race, gender, or profession had careers that catered to, and allowed them to focus on, (for most of the day anyway) their natural talents and strengths. Those talents of course varied from profession to profession and even within professions (say a stockbroker at one firm versus another firm) because of the requirements, philosophies, or desired outcomes from specific organizations.
Gallup defines talent as any naturally reoccurring behavior, thought, or feeling that can be productively applied. When we employ our talents, we enjoy the activity we are engaged in, time seems to fly by, and we obtain a large amount of happiness and satisfaction from using the talent (or from the outcome of the talent). Talents can be developed into strengths with practice and the addition of skill and knowledge. Gallup isn't certain how our talents develop; certain scientific rationales exist for how the brain forms neural pathways, but if our talents are genetic or aquired through our environment is not fully clear (sound familiar?)
So far, with one small exception, this doesn't all seem very queer does it? Well, hold on, I'm getting there.
In their research, Gallup found a couple hundered different talents and from them derived 34 themes. Donald Clifton and others then developed an assessment instrument to help determine what your most dominant themes are - you receive your top five themes after taking the assessment. (The instrument is available online only. A code to use the Clifton Strengthsfinder is available with each new copy of Now, Discover Your Strengths. (If you choose to order a copy and want to take the instrument, DO NOT order a used copy.)) Gallup only gives you the top five so you will narrow your focus.
The idea is that you quit focusing on where you are weak because you will only ever make marginal gains on them. Instead, you focus on what is natural and enjoyable because these are your talents and work on them can yield significant results, your talents become strengths, enabling you to be the best of the best in what you do. It's a very different way of thinking and one that makes a lot of sense once you consider the basic premise.
This core concept: focus on what comes naturally to you - the things you can't NOT do - and you can go beyond exceptional - has tremendous application to queer life. Are you a little femme? Maybe a good deal butch? Enjoy doing hair or arranging flowers? Enjoy building and repairing? Enjoy fashion? Barely capable of matching your socks? Are you a great conversationalist? You just want to settle down with the guy/girls of your dreams in a suburban bungalo? Then, do it, enjoy it, celebrate it, or quit worrying about it. If it's the way you are, then capitalize on it. Find a community or organization or workplace that lets you be you and you will shine. It's when we deny those things that make us US, when we try to supress those qualities that we stumble, worry, and ultimately fail.
So, here in the month of Pride, I say be proud of who you are. Capitalize on your innate characteristics. Find people and places that let you express yourself. (Oh, and let's not be snobs to those who are different from us - let's appreciate our uniqueness.)
. It's a fascinating subject and I fully recommend that you read it if you manage people. But today I want to tackle a specific element of the Twelve Questions that resulted in the book Now, Discover your Strengths. This book is about discovering and developing your natural talents.This is all based around research that Gallup conducted approximately 10-12 years ago. Gallup found that people who were considered the best of the best in their profession (and this included people in all different types of positions: policemen, managers, housekeepers, teachers, lawyers, customer service representatives, etc.) no matter what their age, race, gender, or profession had careers that catered to, and allowed them to focus on, (for most of the day anyway) their natural talents and strengths. Those talents of course varied from profession to profession and even within professions (say a stockbroker at one firm versus another firm) because of the requirements, philosophies, or desired outcomes from specific organizations.
Gallup defines talent as any naturally reoccurring behavior, thought, or feeling that can be productively applied. When we employ our talents, we enjoy the activity we are engaged in, time seems to fly by, and we obtain a large amount of happiness and satisfaction from using the talent (or from the outcome of the talent). Talents can be developed into strengths with practice and the addition of skill and knowledge. Gallup isn't certain how our talents develop; certain scientific rationales exist for how the brain forms neural pathways, but if our talents are genetic or aquired through our environment is not fully clear (sound familiar?)
So far, with one small exception, this doesn't all seem very queer does it? Well, hold on, I'm getting there.
In their research, Gallup found a couple hundered different talents and from them derived 34 themes. Donald Clifton and others then developed an assessment instrument to help determine what your most dominant themes are - you receive your top five themes after taking the assessment. (The instrument is available online only. A code to use the Clifton Strengthsfinder is available with each new copy of Now, Discover Your Strengths. (If you choose to order a copy and want to take the instrument, DO NOT order a used copy.)) Gallup only gives you the top five so you will narrow your focus.
The idea is that you quit focusing on where you are weak because you will only ever make marginal gains on them. Instead, you focus on what is natural and enjoyable because these are your talents and work on them can yield significant results, your talents become strengths, enabling you to be the best of the best in what you do. It's a very different way of thinking and one that makes a lot of sense once you consider the basic premise.
This core concept: focus on what comes naturally to you - the things you can't NOT do - and you can go beyond exceptional - has tremendous application to queer life. Are you a little femme? Maybe a good deal butch? Enjoy doing hair or arranging flowers? Enjoy building and repairing? Enjoy fashion? Barely capable of matching your socks? Are you a great conversationalist? You just want to settle down with the guy/girls of your dreams in a suburban bungalo? Then, do it, enjoy it, celebrate it, or quit worrying about it. If it's the way you are, then capitalize on it. Find a community or organization or workplace that lets you be you and you will shine. It's when we deny those things that make us US, when we try to supress those qualities that we stumble, worry, and ultimately fail.
So, here in the month of Pride, I say be proud of who you are. Capitalize on your innate characteristics. Find people and places that let you express yourself. (Oh, and let's not be snobs to those who are different from us - let's appreciate our uniqueness.)
Go Little Sis!
My little sister is on a float in the Atlanta Gay Pride parade today. How did my little sister, who is straight, end up in a pride parade long before her older (and only) gay brother (who probably never will)? Because her boyfriend is in a Rocky Horror Show troop. Isn't life strange?
Thanks for supporting all the queens and trannies, sista-love. :)
Thanks for supporting all the queens and trannies, sista-love. :)
Monday, June 19, 2006
Fish, Fish, Fish
Tim Fish is an up and coming indie artist. He's actually been around for quite some time, but it just starting to get some of the attention he deserves.
So far his seminal work is Calvacade of Boys, a series detailing the lives of several different gay men. It's a very entertaining read. Some of it strikes home as very accurate despite occasionally falling into a stereotypical short-hand. You can really see Tim's progress as an artist and writer through the course of the series. I fully recommend it for anybody who enjoys slice-of-life comics, romance comics, and almost any gay man I think would enjoy it.
His latest release is Strugglers, which is actually an updating and amplification of an earlier work of his, Meet Me in Saint Louis. Strugglers is a prequel of sorts to Calvacade. It focuses partly on Tighe during a phase in his life when he's just graduated college and not yet fully dealt with his sexuality. It also is the story of his two roommates, Alison and Tracey, good friends and recent college graduates trying to make it in the indie music scene in St. Louis, Missouri and also dealing with the realities of post-college life.
Strugglers is very much the coming-of-age story, a collegiate Huck Finn in some ways. Although the indie music scene lifestyle of these characters is one that I don't know much about or really even relate to much, I still found myself engrossed in their story. You really begin to care about each of them and get frustrated when they don't make the decisions that are best for them. (I found myself particularly frustrated with Tighe, but that's probably my own projections.) Although this is an earlier work than Calvacade, it feels a bit more well rounded, quite probably because of the additional material that Fish has added to fill out the story more. The new material is pretty obvious because Fish's art current art style is a bit more clean and a finer line than his earlier work. The change is noticeable without being jarring and I found the comparison of styles interesting. Fish's style feels loose and bold, but is actually minimistaclly expressive and full of movement; you can feel the constant dynanism of his pages.
Strugglers might very well escape your radar, but you would be making a mistake. Even if you're not interested in Fish's exploits of gay romance in Calvacade (and you really should, it's quite good stuff), you're still certain to enjoy Strugglers if you've ever wondered what you were going to do with your life.
Fish also has a collection of short pieces he's done in Something Fishy This Way Comes, which is due out in August. Any local comic book shop retailer should be able to order it for you. If they refuse, you can order it through Fish's own website.
So far his seminal work is Calvacade of Boys, a series detailing the lives of several different gay men. It's a very entertaining read. Some of it strikes home as very accurate despite occasionally falling into a stereotypical short-hand. You can really see Tim's progress as an artist and writer through the course of the series. I fully recommend it for anybody who enjoys slice-of-life comics, romance comics, and almost any gay man I think would enjoy it.
His latest release is Strugglers, which is actually an updating and amplification of an earlier work of his, Meet Me in Saint Louis. Strugglers is a prequel of sorts to Calvacade. It focuses partly on Tighe during a phase in his life when he's just graduated college and not yet fully dealt with his sexuality. It also is the story of his two roommates, Alison and Tracey, good friends and recent college graduates trying to make it in the indie music scene in St. Louis, Missouri and also dealing with the realities of post-college life.
Strugglers is very much the coming-of-age story, a collegiate Huck Finn in some ways. Although the indie music scene lifestyle of these characters is one that I don't know much about or really even relate to much, I still found myself engrossed in their story. You really begin to care about each of them and get frustrated when they don't make the decisions that are best for them. (I found myself particularly frustrated with Tighe, but that's probably my own projections.) Although this is an earlier work than Calvacade, it feels a bit more well rounded, quite probably because of the additional material that Fish has added to fill out the story more. The new material is pretty obvious because Fish's art current art style is a bit more clean and a finer line than his earlier work. The change is noticeable without being jarring and I found the comparison of styles interesting. Fish's style feels loose and bold, but is actually minimistaclly expressive and full of movement; you can feel the constant dynanism of his pages.
Strugglers might very well escape your radar, but you would be making a mistake. Even if you're not interested in Fish's exploits of gay romance in Calvacade (and you really should, it's quite good stuff), you're still certain to enjoy Strugglers if you've ever wondered what you were going to do with your life.
Fish also has a collection of short pieces he's done in Something Fishy This Way Comes, which is due out in August. Any local comic book shop retailer should be able to order it for you. If they refuse, you can order it through Fish's own website.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Goodbye, Mary
Can my virtriol towards Mary Cheney cause me to post on her even though I don't want to give her any more attention than she's already undeservedly getting? Apparently so; the woman is worse than the dismissable psychopath Coulter.
My only comment is that in every interview with Mary that I've heard or read, she comes across as dissembling, disengenuous, and inauthentic. It's clear that because she was born into a station of wealth and priviledge, she's never truly thought about or worried about the injustices being perpetrated on her and every other gay and lesbian American. She could have offered a memoir demonstrating nuance, conflicting priorities and loyalties, and articulate introspection, but opted for something safe, shallow, and political.
A person who can express intense anger over John Kerry's (admittedly political) mention of her sexuality but cannot muster any emotion over the leader of our nation supporting legalized discrimination is either foolish, has severely hindered mental or emotional faculties, or is so rich and priviledged that she doesn't have to worry about it. I'm tempted to vote for all three. This woman has not just passed up opportunity after opportunity to speak out on behalf or use her influence to help gay and lesbian Americans, she has, through action and inaction, worked against the LGBT community.
Mary, you are the viper under the flower. You seem harmless and friendly, but you're nothing but poision.
My only comment is that in every interview with Mary that I've heard or read, she comes across as dissembling, disengenuous, and inauthentic. It's clear that because she was born into a station of wealth and priviledge, she's never truly thought about or worried about the injustices being perpetrated on her and every other gay and lesbian American. She could have offered a memoir demonstrating nuance, conflicting priorities and loyalties, and articulate introspection, but opted for something safe, shallow, and political.
A person who can express intense anger over John Kerry's (admittedly political) mention of her sexuality but cannot muster any emotion over the leader of our nation supporting legalized discrimination is either foolish, has severely hindered mental or emotional faculties, or is so rich and priviledged that she doesn't have to worry about it. I'm tempted to vote for all three. This woman has not just passed up opportunity after opportunity to speak out on behalf or use her influence to help gay and lesbian Americans, she has, through action and inaction, worked against the LGBT community.
Mary, you are the viper under the flower. You seem harmless and friendly, but you're nothing but poision.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Blogging Against Sexism (A Day Late)
A casual perusal of my archives will show that I frequently blog about the women I love and why I, as a gay man, love women. Therefore, although I have no significant thoughts, I want to make a small contribution to Blogging Against Sexism Day.
One, I'd like to quote a section from a previous entry because I think it's perfectly relevant:
If you've never seen the documentary Trembling Before G-d, do take time to see it. It's a great look at being Jewish (especially orthodox) and gay/lesbian. Recently, Rabbi Steven Greenberg was on a local radio interview program "Charlotte Talks." Listen to his interview here. What I thought was very interesting was his discussion of the relationship between homophobia and misogyny. I've long held this notion in my head, but the rabbi articulated it beautifully: "homophobia is a smaller room in the larger hotel of misogny." He goes on to talk about the threat that out gay men pose to traditonal patriarchical structures and notions of masculinity.
Women and gay men (and really all minorities) need to be concerned about what happens to each other. We're all in the same boat, people, and laws and unfair practices that impact one group impacts us all. If we can keep qualified women from earning the same as a man, what keeps us from denying qualified gay men that same equal pay? (Nothing is the answer - we're not even a protected group by law.) If gay people expect straight people to fight with us for our rights, we must help fight other injustices in our society.
The men who hate women hate queers. The men who hate queers hate women. We should stand up for each other.
Also, I can't seem to find anywhere that I've ranted on the slutification of American girls. Our culture has become obsessed with sexualizing children it seems. (And ironically it seems that the most conservative parents are the ones who permit the most porn-star-like attire in their girls.) Only in a society where slutification is a beauty standard can Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears be celebrities and role models. I've seen some brief clips of the Bratz cartoon via my weekly dose of The Soup (on E! TV - the irony/potential hypocrisy does not escape me). Bratz are these big headed big eyed dolls that look like they stepped out of a bizarro Steve Madden commercial. In any case, this cartoon features the characters at a bar and dressing in high slut fasion (and gossiping and of course the female characters are mean and vindictive to each other). And Bratz is outselling Barbie currently (not that Barbie doesn't have her own gender politics, but she's never been about being an evil porn-star wannabe).
Mature women can make the choice to dress however they want to; I'm concerned about how we're socializing our children, however. If we teach young girls that their value in not only in their bodies, but in how flamboyantly they expose their body parts, we are setting them up (and likewise our future selves) for trouble. This is the breeding ground for sexism: teaching that beauty is makeup (and a lot of it) and clothing (and little of it). We set our girls up to be objectified by young boys (potentially before they even hit puberty) and send the message to the girls that sexuality is their best and only attribute.
One, I'd like to quote a section from a previous entry because I think it's perfectly relevant:
If you've never seen the documentary Trembling Before G-d, do take time to see it. It's a great look at being Jewish (especially orthodox) and gay/lesbian. Recently, Rabbi Steven Greenberg was on a local radio interview program "Charlotte Talks." Listen to his interview here. What I thought was very interesting was his discussion of the relationship between homophobia and misogyny. I've long held this notion in my head, but the rabbi articulated it beautifully: "homophobia is a smaller room in the larger hotel of misogny." He goes on to talk about the threat that out gay men pose to traditonal patriarchical structures and notions of masculinity.
Women and gay men (and really all minorities) need to be concerned about what happens to each other. We're all in the same boat, people, and laws and unfair practices that impact one group impacts us all. If we can keep qualified women from earning the same as a man, what keeps us from denying qualified gay men that same equal pay? (Nothing is the answer - we're not even a protected group by law.) If gay people expect straight people to fight with us for our rights, we must help fight other injustices in our society.
The men who hate women hate queers. The men who hate queers hate women. We should stand up for each other.
Also, I can't seem to find anywhere that I've ranted on the slutification of American girls. Our culture has become obsessed with sexualizing children it seems. (And ironically it seems that the most conservative parents are the ones who permit the most porn-star-like attire in their girls.) Only in a society where slutification is a beauty standard can Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears be celebrities and role models. I've seen some brief clips of the Bratz cartoon via my weekly dose of The Soup (on E! TV - the irony/potential hypocrisy does not escape me). Bratz are these big headed big eyed dolls that look like they stepped out of a bizarro Steve Madden commercial. In any case, this cartoon features the characters at a bar and dressing in high slut fasion (and gossiping and of course the female characters are mean and vindictive to each other). And Bratz is outselling Barbie currently (not that Barbie doesn't have her own gender politics, but she's never been about being an evil porn-star wannabe).
Mature women can make the choice to dress however they want to; I'm concerned about how we're socializing our children, however. If we teach young girls that their value in not only in their bodies, but in how flamboyantly they expose their body parts, we are setting them up (and likewise our future selves) for trouble. This is the breeding ground for sexism: teaching that beauty is makeup (and a lot of it) and clothing (and little of it). We set our girls up to be objectified by young boys (potentially before they even hit puberty) and send the message to the girls that sexuality is their best and only attribute.
A Fevered Vision
Hi, all, well this past week Peter fell dreadfully ill and in the course of tending to him, I caught the durn stuff as well, so while I've not been as sick as him, it hasn't been a fun week to say the least. Togetherness is not so wonderful when you can't breathe (literally).
In any case, during the recuperative process and whilst reading the regular e-mail newsletter from ChristianGays.com (go visit Mary there - she's a sweetie), my thoughts ran to the late stage in life in which I came out. I finally came out to myself at the age of 29, younger than some do, but older than most men (on average). Peter was the first man I connected with emotionally and physically. For six years we've kept that connection, although at times we were apart from each other. We've maintained our relationship continuously for the past three and a half years. Peter knew he was gay at a very early age. I had certain expressions of homosexuality starting in my pre-teen years, but never realized what they actually were, such was my sheltered life. (Not that I am blaming my parents for sheltering me; they absolutely gave me the appropriate information when I asked for it and was ready for it. Society today is far too obsessed with adult-izing and sexualizing children -- I know I've posted somewhere on here about the slutification of American girls.)
So, sometimes I wonder what I might have missed out on: that early fumbling kiss with another exploring young man, being able to take advantage of my more lithe (I was never athletic) and young body and looks to attract other guys, discovering other young gay friends in college, etc. Yet, I'm constantly drawn to one conclusion: I came out when it was right for me.
I firmly believe that God graced me (for some unknown reason) with the ability to grow to a point in my life where I could accept and deal with my sexuality. I almost certainly didn't miss out on anything. Growing up in Mississippi, there weren't a lot of outlets for gay people (or at least none that I would have had access to then). And at points in my life I was fiercely evangelical and fundamentalist. I would sent myself to a re-orientation camp (and did briefly consider this after watching a tv program right early in the coming out process). And, I did have gay friends in college, some of whom where out and the time and others who weren't. Of course, they knew about me, but wisely weren't going to force that on me.
No, I was in an emotionally and spiritually mature enough place to accept this part of me. I also had the right support structure: a good town to come out in (Atlanta), a friendly and affirming co-worker, and my sister, who was at that point old enough to be fantastic emotional support and come to her own indepent, thought-out conclusions. Even with all that, it took me another year and a half/two years to come out to my parents. Had I been much younger, I would have certainly suffered in silence for decades (even though I know they would have been loving and supportive as always).
I wish all gay men and women could have the opportunity that I did, to have the gift that I did. Thank you, God, for the gift you gave me. Please extend Your grace to my brothers and sisters who need it.
In any case, during the recuperative process and whilst reading the regular e-mail newsletter from ChristianGays.com (go visit Mary there - she's a sweetie), my thoughts ran to the late stage in life in which I came out. I finally came out to myself at the age of 29, younger than some do, but older than most men (on average). Peter was the first man I connected with emotionally and physically. For six years we've kept that connection, although at times we were apart from each other. We've maintained our relationship continuously for the past three and a half years. Peter knew he was gay at a very early age. I had certain expressions of homosexuality starting in my pre-teen years, but never realized what they actually were, such was my sheltered life. (Not that I am blaming my parents for sheltering me; they absolutely gave me the appropriate information when I asked for it and was ready for it. Society today is far too obsessed with adult-izing and sexualizing children -- I know I've posted somewhere on here about the slutification of American girls.)
So, sometimes I wonder what I might have missed out on: that early fumbling kiss with another exploring young man, being able to take advantage of my more lithe (I was never athletic) and young body and looks to attract other guys, discovering other young gay friends in college, etc. Yet, I'm constantly drawn to one conclusion: I came out when it was right for me.
I firmly believe that God graced me (for some unknown reason) with the ability to grow to a point in my life where I could accept and deal with my sexuality. I almost certainly didn't miss out on anything. Growing up in Mississippi, there weren't a lot of outlets for gay people (or at least none that I would have had access to then). And at points in my life I was fiercely evangelical and fundamentalist. I would sent myself to a re-orientation camp (and did briefly consider this after watching a tv program right early in the coming out process). And, I did have gay friends in college, some of whom where out and the time and others who weren't. Of course, they knew about me, but wisely weren't going to force that on me.
No, I was in an emotionally and spiritually mature enough place to accept this part of me. I also had the right support structure: a good town to come out in (Atlanta), a friendly and affirming co-worker, and my sister, who was at that point old enough to be fantastic emotional support and come to her own indepent, thought-out conclusions. Even with all that, it took me another year and a half/two years to come out to my parents. Had I been much younger, I would have certainly suffered in silence for decades (even though I know they would have been loving and supportive as always).
I wish all gay men and women could have the opportunity that I did, to have the gift that I did. Thank you, God, for the gift you gave me. Please extend Your grace to my brothers and sisters who need it.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Freedom to Marry Week: February 12-18
From Equality North Carolina...
The week of February 12-18 marks Freedom To Marry Week across the country, just in time for Valentine's Day! To celebrate the quest for marriage equality, we're hosting screenings of the documentary Freedom to Marry: Journey to Justice. This moving short film documents the exciting movement for marriage equality in California in 2004 and 2005, and tells the story of families who are affected by discriminatory marriage laws.
These screenings are free and open to the public. A brief discussion will follow.
Charlotte
Wednesday, February 157:00 PM
The Lesbian and Gay Community
Center1401 Central Avenue, Charlotte
Triangle
with the NC Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality
Thursday, February 167:00 PM
Eno River Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
4907 Garrett Road, Durham
The week of February 12-18 marks Freedom To Marry Week across the country, just in time for Valentine's Day! To celebrate the quest for marriage equality, we're hosting screenings of the documentary Freedom to Marry: Journey to Justice. This moving short film documents the exciting movement for marriage equality in California in 2004 and 2005, and tells the story of families who are affected by discriminatory marriage laws.
These screenings are free and open to the public. A brief discussion will follow.
Charlotte
Wednesday, February 157:00 PM
The Lesbian and Gay Community
Center1401 Central Avenue, Charlotte
Triangle
with the NC Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality
Thursday, February 167:00 PM
Eno River Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
4907 Garrett Road, Durham
In Remembrance: Coretta Scott King
It's truly a sad day for our nation with the passing of Mrs. King. She faithfully carried out her husband's vision her entire days - extending well past what even Dr. King envisioned (or at least past the verbal expression of his vision). She took his dream and talked about how it applied to everybody.
Unlike some of her children, she has stood by the ideal that equality extends beyond race to incorporate any number of differences, the least of which is not sexual orientation. Mrs. King was a staunch ally of gays and lesbians in the quest for civil equality.
Courtesy of Lambda Legal, here are some of Mrs. King's own words on gay and lesbian equality. Mrs. King, we mourn your passing. Heaven salutes you as you enter through its gates.
“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice.... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people...
Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement . . .. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”
Unlike some of her children, she has stood by the ideal that equality extends beyond race to incorporate any number of differences, the least of which is not sexual orientation. Mrs. King was a staunch ally of gays and lesbians in the quest for civil equality.
Courtesy of Lambda Legal, here are some of Mrs. King's own words on gay and lesbian equality. Mrs. King, we mourn your passing. Heaven salutes you as you enter through its gates.
“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice.... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people...
Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement . . .. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Broken-back Mountain
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, all!
Peter and I just returned from a wonderful trip to San Francisco where I was able to see the city and we spent the holidays with his adorable family. During our tour of the city, we were able to see Brokeback Mountain.
In anticipation of watching the movie, I read the short story by Annie Proulx on which the movie is based and follows incredibly closely. Many are heralding this movie as the great gay hope - a gay romance movie that will be seen in fairly mainstream circulation and appeal all sorts of people who would never otherwise be exposed to such a story. Many are claiming that people will be intensely moved and reconsider their ideas about gay people. Many call it a tender, loving look at two men in love and how accurate Ms. Proulx portrays this dynamic. All of these assertions are dead wrong.
WARNING - following are major SPOILERS. If you don't want to know the ending or any other details, don't read this post until you read the story or see the movie. Also, I'm not giving a synopsis of the movie, so some of my comments may be lost on you until then.
First, let me say that this movie is well done and worth your time and money to see. Heath Ledger's and Jake Gyllenthal performances are top notch, as are all of the supporting cast. The cinematography is gorgeous. The movie adds logical and appropriate story material that the short story only suggests or omits. You are definitely moved and touched by this movie; it's hard not to be.
However, this story (and here I refer to the source material) suffers from problems found in many gay romance stories. Despite reviews I have seen asserting otherwise, I do not believe Proulx truly understands same-sex male intimacy. The story she wrote is a straight person's perspective (and a woman's perspective in addition) on and, ultimately, shows that bias, albeit unintentionally.
There are few tender moments between these men; indeed, Jack Twist (the character Gyllenthal plays and the member of the couple most attuned to his sexuality) specifically recalls his favorite moment between them as a time (very brief in the film) when Ennis Del Mar (Ledger and the character who suppresses his sexuality) holds him, wanting nothing. The rest of their time is marked by sex, often rough, and sometimes violent. Their first sexual encounter is particularly forceful, painful, and animalistic. Yes, these men are ranchers in the mid 1960's, and supposed to be rough and ragged. This doesn't mean that their sexual interactions must always reflect this, or even mean that sex between them should reflect this. Proulx has unwittingly bought into the stereotype that sex between men is violent.
These two gay men are shiftless, submissive, and substandard. They lack ambition, direction, or any real authority or power. Twist is something of a con-man. He's also emasculated by his capable and seemingly uninterested wife and his overbearing father-in-law (the "stud duck" as Proulx calls him). Twist and Del Mar are constant failures. Twist loses the sheep herding job, is a pitiful rodeo contestant, and his plans for himself and Ennis (and possibly another man) are thwarted. Jack's father mentions how Jack's often planned big ideas, but none ever came to fruition. Ennis wanders aimlessly. His marriage fails and in the movie, his second relationship with a woman fails. Obviously, his relationship with Twist fails to be fully realized and meaningful. He also never finds success. In the short story and the movie, it's clear that he is left late in life with only a memory of love and happiness, and certainly no bright future prospects. Even Jack's last wishes are denied; he is thwarted beyond the end. Ennis and Jack possess character flaws frequently associated with gay men.
One cliche that I'm glad the movie omits is an encounter that Jack has with his father. Jack recounts a time when he was very young and accidentally wet himself. His father, in a rage, takes out his penis and pisses all over Jack and the bathroom. This story is brought up in the context of an interesting juxtaposition: the emotional separation between Jack and his father as represented by Jack's circumcised penis and his father's uncircumcised one (again, though, Jack, the queer, is "missing" a piece of himself - a piece of male-ness). Although Proulx never tries to make the assertion, it's far to easy to see the all too common misconception that child abuse leads to homosexuality (and the emotionally unavailable father as another possible factor).
Another tiresome cliche that remains, however, is the death of Jack. Jack, who clearly accepts and acknowledges his sexuality, is the one who is disposed of - silently almost - in the film, quickly and brutally. It's a tired theme in literature that gay people must pay for their forbidden love, that death is the fitting penalty for opposing God (or the gods) and nature. Ennis, who struggles with his identity and tries to live a straight life, is spared. Once again, a gay couple is denied a happy ending; they taste what could have been but are forever denied it.
It's clear from both the movie and the book that life could have turned out better for Ennis and Jack, had Ennis only accepted his identity. However, it's not so clear that the casual movie-goer will come to that conclusion. Only a handful of people who like to analyze and discuss themes and motifs in films will likely arrive at that conclusion; more likely your typical moviewatcher will simply see an example of a gay relationship that was doomed to fail from the start. Another notch in the belt of bigots who claim that gays can't have successful or meaningful relationships. More support for the stereotype that male-male relationships are simply about sex (and violent sex at that). It's far too easy for people who already possess negative stereotypes to see those ideas reinforced: gay people are deceitful; we get into marriages and cheat on our spouses; gay people are sex fiends; gay people are weak and purposeless. This movie is unlikely to change peoples' minds, even if they are open to a different perspective. Brokeback Mountain simply doesn't offer one.
Like many adaptations of literature, this one misses some important nuances available only through a reading of the original material. The story begins where the movie ends - I would have preferred that the movie follow this layout as it added a slightly brighter sheen on the events. The events of Jack's death are more dubious in the story. The movie asserts a violent death for Jack. The story is much less clear on this issue. Ennis clearly believes that Jack was beaten to death, but we never know for certain. I'd prefer to think this was Ennis's own fears creeping into his interpretation of events and that Jack wasn't killed. The movie leaves very little room to doubt the cause of Jack's demise.
The film does retain a structural problem from the story that could have been easily corrected. The first sexual encounter between Jack and Ennis is sudden and mostly unprescidented. There are some cues that a mutual interest might be brewing, and the movie makes these slightly more clear, but given Ennis's self-repression, their initial sexual encounters seem unlikely, given the lack of build-up to them.
The question that remains is why was Brokeback Mountain chosen to make into a film and why are so many gay people happy about it? Other books covering the same territory (gay cowboys in the midwest) exist and have much happier endings (not to mention a gay male persepctive). The likely answer is that this story appeared in the New Yorker and that the interested parties didn't think to research similar stories or didn't see the appeal of less prestigious publications. Also, pathos is often seen as being artful, while happy endings are capriciously seen as being much less so.
And why are we so happy about it? Yes, it's a film worth seeing, but it's not the best gay film ever made. And despite a more mainstream distribtution, it's not likely to draw in a lot of people who don't want to see queers on screen. It's a good film based on a flawed story and will do little to generate compassion or acceptance that didn't already exist.
Peter and I just returned from a wonderful trip to San Francisco where I was able to see the city and we spent the holidays with his adorable family. During our tour of the city, we were able to see Brokeback Mountain.
In anticipation of watching the movie, I read the short story by Annie Proulx on which the movie is based and follows incredibly closely. Many are heralding this movie as the great gay hope - a gay romance movie that will be seen in fairly mainstream circulation and appeal all sorts of people who would never otherwise be exposed to such a story. Many are claiming that people will be intensely moved and reconsider their ideas about gay people. Many call it a tender, loving look at two men in love and how accurate Ms. Proulx portrays this dynamic. All of these assertions are dead wrong.
WARNING - following are major SPOILERS. If you don't want to know the ending or any other details, don't read this post until you read the story or see the movie. Also, I'm not giving a synopsis of the movie, so some of my comments may be lost on you until then.
First, let me say that this movie is well done and worth your time and money to see. Heath Ledger's and Jake Gyllenthal performances are top notch, as are all of the supporting cast. The cinematography is gorgeous. The movie adds logical and appropriate story material that the short story only suggests or omits. You are definitely moved and touched by this movie; it's hard not to be.
However, this story (and here I refer to the source material) suffers from problems found in many gay romance stories. Despite reviews I have seen asserting otherwise, I do not believe Proulx truly understands same-sex male intimacy. The story she wrote is a straight person's perspective (and a woman's perspective in addition) on and, ultimately, shows that bias, albeit unintentionally.
There are few tender moments between these men; indeed, Jack Twist (the character Gyllenthal plays and the member of the couple most attuned to his sexuality) specifically recalls his favorite moment between them as a time (very brief in the film) when Ennis Del Mar (Ledger and the character who suppresses his sexuality) holds him, wanting nothing. The rest of their time is marked by sex, often rough, and sometimes violent. Their first sexual encounter is particularly forceful, painful, and animalistic. Yes, these men are ranchers in the mid 1960's, and supposed to be rough and ragged. This doesn't mean that their sexual interactions must always reflect this, or even mean that sex between them should reflect this. Proulx has unwittingly bought into the stereotype that sex between men is violent.
These two gay men are shiftless, submissive, and substandard. They lack ambition, direction, or any real authority or power. Twist is something of a con-man. He's also emasculated by his capable and seemingly uninterested wife and his overbearing father-in-law (the "stud duck" as Proulx calls him). Twist and Del Mar are constant failures. Twist loses the sheep herding job, is a pitiful rodeo contestant, and his plans for himself and Ennis (and possibly another man) are thwarted. Jack's father mentions how Jack's often planned big ideas, but none ever came to fruition. Ennis wanders aimlessly. His marriage fails and in the movie, his second relationship with a woman fails. Obviously, his relationship with Twist fails to be fully realized and meaningful. He also never finds success. In the short story and the movie, it's clear that he is left late in life with only a memory of love and happiness, and certainly no bright future prospects. Even Jack's last wishes are denied; he is thwarted beyond the end. Ennis and Jack possess character flaws frequently associated with gay men.
One cliche that I'm glad the movie omits is an encounter that Jack has with his father. Jack recounts a time when he was very young and accidentally wet himself. His father, in a rage, takes out his penis and pisses all over Jack and the bathroom. This story is brought up in the context of an interesting juxtaposition: the emotional separation between Jack and his father as represented by Jack's circumcised penis and his father's uncircumcised one (again, though, Jack, the queer, is "missing" a piece of himself - a piece of male-ness). Although Proulx never tries to make the assertion, it's far to easy to see the all too common misconception that child abuse leads to homosexuality (and the emotionally unavailable father as another possible factor).
Another tiresome cliche that remains, however, is the death of Jack. Jack, who clearly accepts and acknowledges his sexuality, is the one who is disposed of - silently almost - in the film, quickly and brutally. It's a tired theme in literature that gay people must pay for their forbidden love, that death is the fitting penalty for opposing God (or the gods) and nature. Ennis, who struggles with his identity and tries to live a straight life, is spared. Once again, a gay couple is denied a happy ending; they taste what could have been but are forever denied it.
It's clear from both the movie and the book that life could have turned out better for Ennis and Jack, had Ennis only accepted his identity. However, it's not so clear that the casual movie-goer will come to that conclusion. Only a handful of people who like to analyze and discuss themes and motifs in films will likely arrive at that conclusion; more likely your typical moviewatcher will simply see an example of a gay relationship that was doomed to fail from the start. Another notch in the belt of bigots who claim that gays can't have successful or meaningful relationships. More support for the stereotype that male-male relationships are simply about sex (and violent sex at that). It's far too easy for people who already possess negative stereotypes to see those ideas reinforced: gay people are deceitful; we get into marriages and cheat on our spouses; gay people are sex fiends; gay people are weak and purposeless. This movie is unlikely to change peoples' minds, even if they are open to a different perspective. Brokeback Mountain simply doesn't offer one.
Like many adaptations of literature, this one misses some important nuances available only through a reading of the original material. The story begins where the movie ends - I would have preferred that the movie follow this layout as it added a slightly brighter sheen on the events. The events of Jack's death are more dubious in the story. The movie asserts a violent death for Jack. The story is much less clear on this issue. Ennis clearly believes that Jack was beaten to death, but we never know for certain. I'd prefer to think this was Ennis's own fears creeping into his interpretation of events and that Jack wasn't killed. The movie leaves very little room to doubt the cause of Jack's demise.
The film does retain a structural problem from the story that could have been easily corrected. The first sexual encounter between Jack and Ennis is sudden and mostly unprescidented. There are some cues that a mutual interest might be brewing, and the movie makes these slightly more clear, but given Ennis's self-repression, their initial sexual encounters seem unlikely, given the lack of build-up to them.
The question that remains is why was Brokeback Mountain chosen to make into a film and why are so many gay people happy about it? Other books covering the same territory (gay cowboys in the midwest) exist and have much happier endings (not to mention a gay male persepctive). The likely answer is that this story appeared in the New Yorker and that the interested parties didn't think to research similar stories or didn't see the appeal of less prestigious publications. Also, pathos is often seen as being artful, while happy endings are capriciously seen as being much less so.
And why are we so happy about it? Yes, it's a film worth seeing, but it's not the best gay film ever made. And despite a more mainstream distribtution, it's not likely to draw in a lot of people who don't want to see queers on screen. It's a good film based on a flawed story and will do little to generate compassion or acceptance that didn't already exist.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Alms for the Poor (Readers that Remain)
Boy, has it really been over two months since my last entry!?
Either I've become less angry or more busy - and are the two related? Mmm, methinks that, yes, they are. This semester (I think in terms of academic years, not calendar years) has been exceptionally hectic and next semester does not seem like it will be any different. Understandably, the blog has taken a huge back seat. Honestly I almost forgot about it!
And although I figured nobody still checks in on it, I'd still like to write down a few events, thoughts, and developments in my gay life.
I had the opportunity to see Mrs. Jane Elliot speak. Mrs. Elliot is the teacher responsible for the infamous "brown eyed - blue eyed" discrimination/oppression exercise. (She initially did this with 3rd graders and now uses the same exercise with adult groups.) She's a spark plug of a woman and strident in her opinions. Still, she's out there preaching the right message - mostly on racial issues, but also on gender and sexual orientation and social/economic status.
I also had the opportunity to hear Karen Popp, a former White House lawyer for President Clinton and a prosecutor of several famous mob bosses (including John Gotti) speak on leadership. Unfortunately she wasn't a particularly good speaker, although she had some highly interesting stories. When I asked her about challenges to women in attaining high levels of leadership, she basically said that, yep, there are challenges. I had hoped she would speak to what women could do to equip themselves for these challenges, and also possibly speak to challenges gays and lesbians experience (how do I know she was lesbian? see below).
Thanksgiving was a nice visit with my family. It was strange to think that this might be "the" family gathering for many years - my sister has a beau that's she's very serious about and his two sisters also visited us. Peter and I also got to spend some time in Atlanta on our own, which was very much fun. We even braved the post-Thanksgiving crowds for a reasonably good time and some nice deals.
Peter and I finally ran into a jewlery salesperson who wasn't freaked out when we told her we were looking for rings for us both. Not only was she not freaked, but was very enthusiastic and bubbly (sounded like she may have had a gay son).
I'm very excited about heading out to San Francisco for the holidays. We're visiting his family (and I ADORE his mother) and I think San Fran will be lovely and romantic this time of year.
I've lost 31 lbs in the past 13 weeks! How cool is that!!?? I know again look like the picture you see up here on my blog taken a few years ago.
I've long had a theory that some (not all) gay men have what I call "gay face." Gay face is a certain symmetry or something in the eyes, something I can't quite describe that identifies them as gay. Friends laugh at this, but now a study from a Harvard pyschology undergraduate seems to support my theory. The now graduated Harvardian showed people of various sexual orientations face pictures of other people and told the observers to rank how hetero or homosexual the person in the picture was. And there seem to be a correlation! Of course, gay men and lesbians did better at being correct, but, interestingly, gay men were easier to identify as being gay. Looks like I'm not so crazy after all!
If you've never seen the documentary Trembling Before G-d, do take time to see it. It's a great look at being Jewish (especially orthodox) and gay/lesbian. Recently, Rabbi Steven Greenberg was on a local radio interview program "Charlotte Talks." Listen to his interview here. What I thought was very interesting was his discussion of the relationship between homophobia and misogyny. I've long held this notion in my head, but the rabbi articulated it beautifully: "homophobia is a smaller room in the larger hotel of misogny." He goes on to talk about the threat that out gay men pose to traditonal patriarchical structures and notions of masculinity.
Back to personal news, I've begun teaching aikido again. This is a real joy; I certainly miss it when it's not in my life and seeing another person discover the wonder of this art is very rewarding. I'm thankful to the Lesbian and Gay Community Center of Charlotte for hosting me.
Unfortunately, the Gay and Lesbian Switchboard of Charlotte, of which I'm a board member, is not fairing as well. Donations are way down (this seems to be the case for many charities -likely a result of the generous donations to the hurrican victims) and our volunteer base is anemic. Next year is our 25th Anniversary, which we plan to celebrate with a bang, especially since it might be our last. Any suggestions on reviving an ailing volunteer organization?
Well, if I don't get back to the blog in time, I want to wish everyone Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah as appropriate. I'll be sure to tell you all about my trip when I get back.
Either I've become less angry or more busy - and are the two related? Mmm, methinks that, yes, they are. This semester (I think in terms of academic years, not calendar years) has been exceptionally hectic and next semester does not seem like it will be any different. Understandably, the blog has taken a huge back seat. Honestly I almost forgot about it!
And although I figured nobody still checks in on it, I'd still like to write down a few events, thoughts, and developments in my gay life.
I had the opportunity to see Mrs. Jane Elliot speak. Mrs. Elliot is the teacher responsible for the infamous "brown eyed - blue eyed" discrimination/oppression exercise. (She initially did this with 3rd graders and now uses the same exercise with adult groups.) She's a spark plug of a woman and strident in her opinions. Still, she's out there preaching the right message - mostly on racial issues, but also on gender and sexual orientation and social/economic status.
I also had the opportunity to hear Karen Popp, a former White House lawyer for President Clinton and a prosecutor of several famous mob bosses (including John Gotti) speak on leadership. Unfortunately she wasn't a particularly good speaker, although she had some highly interesting stories. When I asked her about challenges to women in attaining high levels of leadership, she basically said that, yep, there are challenges. I had hoped she would speak to what women could do to equip themselves for these challenges, and also possibly speak to challenges gays and lesbians experience (how do I know she was lesbian? see below).
Thanksgiving was a nice visit with my family. It was strange to think that this might be "the" family gathering for many years - my sister has a beau that's she's very serious about and his two sisters also visited us. Peter and I also got to spend some time in Atlanta on our own, which was very much fun. We even braved the post-Thanksgiving crowds for a reasonably good time and some nice deals.
Peter and I finally ran into a jewlery salesperson who wasn't freaked out when we told her we were looking for rings for us both. Not only was she not freaked, but was very enthusiastic and bubbly (sounded like she may have had a gay son).
I'm very excited about heading out to San Francisco for the holidays. We're visiting his family (and I ADORE his mother) and I think San Fran will be lovely and romantic this time of year.
I've lost 31 lbs in the past 13 weeks! How cool is that!!?? I know again look like the picture you see up here on my blog taken a few years ago.
I've long had a theory that some (not all) gay men have what I call "gay face." Gay face is a certain symmetry or something in the eyes, something I can't quite describe that identifies them as gay. Friends laugh at this, but now a study from a Harvard pyschology undergraduate seems to support my theory. The now graduated Harvardian showed people of various sexual orientations face pictures of other people and told the observers to rank how hetero or homosexual the person in the picture was. And there seem to be a correlation! Of course, gay men and lesbians did better at being correct, but, interestingly, gay men were easier to identify as being gay. Looks like I'm not so crazy after all!
If you've never seen the documentary Trembling Before G-d, do take time to see it. It's a great look at being Jewish (especially orthodox) and gay/lesbian. Recently, Rabbi Steven Greenberg was on a local radio interview program "Charlotte Talks." Listen to his interview here. What I thought was very interesting was his discussion of the relationship between homophobia and misogyny. I've long held this notion in my head, but the rabbi articulated it beautifully: "homophobia is a smaller room in the larger hotel of misogny." He goes on to talk about the threat that out gay men pose to traditonal patriarchical structures and notions of masculinity.
Back to personal news, I've begun teaching aikido again. This is a real joy; I certainly miss it when it's not in my life and seeing another person discover the wonder of this art is very rewarding. I'm thankful to the Lesbian and Gay Community Center of Charlotte for hosting me.
Unfortunately, the Gay and Lesbian Switchboard of Charlotte, of which I'm a board member, is not fairing as well. Donations are way down (this seems to be the case for many charities -likely a result of the generous donations to the hurrican victims) and our volunteer base is anemic. Next year is our 25th Anniversary, which we plan to celebrate with a bang, especially since it might be our last. Any suggestions on reviving an ailing volunteer organization?
Well, if I don't get back to the blog in time, I want to wish everyone Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah as appropriate. I'll be sure to tell you all about my trip when I get back.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Equality Index
The HRC has released its nnual Corporate Equality Index - showing, according to the HRC, what companies are the most gay-friendly. Like most things with the HRC, I don't agree completely with how they arrive at the scores. For example, giving domestic-partner benefits is counted as equally as offering diversity training including sexual orientation as gay positive marketing. While training is important, benefits should count much more. That costs the company significantly more money and sends an even greater message (action versus words) in my mind. Training should be a bit heavier than marketing; marketing is simply trying to reel in a customer demographic. Training sends a true message of inclusivity.
But a record number of companies (101), scored a perfect 100 rating. That's an impressive number and nearly double last year's count of 56.
North Carolina, my state, did pretty well, with two companies (out of 9 companies in the state that were rated) scoring 100. Those companies are Replacements Limited, a store that specializes in helping you finish collecting out of print china and antiques and Mitchell God + Bob Williams, a furniture company (with a three-page ad in the October 11 Advocate).
Replacements Limited is gay-owned and operated. Plus all employees are allowed to bring their pet dogs to work - how cool is that? They are gay owned and operated and have been strong supporters of NC Equality and other positive non-gay programs. Give them some business if you can.
Of the other seven, three scored an 86, two a 71, and a 43 and a depressing 14, the lowest score on the scale. Oh well, can't win them all. But that's a pretty impressive showing and a good sign.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, the South didn't fare so well over all with only a handful (around 13 or so if you count Texas, not a true Southern state, but more conservative) in the 100 scoring range. The South has always been slow to catch on, it's sad to say, but I believe that it will eventually turn the corner. Southerns are slow to change their minds, but generally care about doing the right thing.
Go patronize some businesses that treat their employees right and take your money elsewhere with companies who don't.
But a record number of companies (101), scored a perfect 100 rating. That's an impressive number and nearly double last year's count of 56.
North Carolina, my state, did pretty well, with two companies (out of 9 companies in the state that were rated) scoring 100. Those companies are Replacements Limited, a store that specializes in helping you finish collecting out of print china and antiques and Mitchell God + Bob Williams, a furniture company (with a three-page ad in the October 11 Advocate).
Replacements Limited is gay-owned and operated. Plus all employees are allowed to bring their pet dogs to work - how cool is that? They are gay owned and operated and have been strong supporters of NC Equality and other positive non-gay programs. Give them some business if you can.
Of the other seven, three scored an 86, two a 71, and a 43 and a depressing 14, the lowest score on the scale. Oh well, can't win them all. But that's a pretty impressive showing and a good sign.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, the South didn't fare so well over all with only a handful (around 13 or so if you count Texas, not a true Southern state, but more conservative) in the 100 scoring range. The South has always been slow to catch on, it's sad to say, but I believe that it will eventually turn the corner. Southerns are slow to change their minds, but generally care about doing the right thing.
Go patronize some businesses that treat their employees right and take your money elsewhere with companies who don't.
Land of our Forefathers
"This is a Christian country and Christian teaching is very clear on these matters. I am extremely concerned that young peoople today are being bombarded with literature which suggests that a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual relationship, which it is not."
So to whom, according to the September 16, 2005 edition of Southern Voice, does this little gem belong? Rick Santorum? Pat Robertson? James Dobson?
Guess, again, it's Gerald Howarth. Who?
Mr. Howarth is the Conservative Party spokesperson in Britian. He spoke these words in response to the British government planning to allow military same-sex couples to live in barracks as married couples do.
So, not all of the right-wing bigots are in our country and it certainly echoes our Puritan roots. I guess his ancestors didn't make it out. I'm not sure whether to feel a little bit of relief that it's not all just us or time to sigh a heavier sigh.
This from our more accepting neighbor across the pond while here in Red State Land, Jerry Falwell has decided that gays should have some basic civil protections! It's Wacky Wednesday to be sure.
Sticking on the religious note, the latest Advocate has an article on Al Sharpton's campaigning against homophobia in the black community. Damn it but I found myself agreeing with Sharpton a few times in the past few years and now he does this! Sharpton used to fit firmly in the looney bin as far as I was concerned, so I'm startled to find myself cheering him on.
Somebody needs to address that problem and the only people who can do it are black leaders. As almost any gay black man can tell you, and many news articles, the black community is VERY anti-gay. Much of it ties into the firm place that religion has in that community, but there are issues of machismo that probably stem from having to prove one's worth as a black man during post-slavery and pre-civil rights years. So, thanks, whitey. And thanks to our forefathers for bringing slavery over her instead of seeing it for the evil it was.
So to whom, according to the September 16, 2005 edition of Southern Voice, does this little gem belong? Rick Santorum? Pat Robertson? James Dobson?
Guess, again, it's Gerald Howarth. Who?
Mr. Howarth is the Conservative Party spokesperson in Britian. He spoke these words in response to the British government planning to allow military same-sex couples to live in barracks as married couples do.
So, not all of the right-wing bigots are in our country and it certainly echoes our Puritan roots. I guess his ancestors didn't make it out. I'm not sure whether to feel a little bit of relief that it's not all just us or time to sigh a heavier sigh.
This from our more accepting neighbor across the pond while here in Red State Land, Jerry Falwell has decided that gays should have some basic civil protections! It's Wacky Wednesday to be sure.
Sticking on the religious note, the latest Advocate has an article on Al Sharpton's campaigning against homophobia in the black community. Damn it but I found myself agreeing with Sharpton a few times in the past few years and now he does this! Sharpton used to fit firmly in the looney bin as far as I was concerned, so I'm startled to find myself cheering him on.
Somebody needs to address that problem and the only people who can do it are black leaders. As almost any gay black man can tell you, and many news articles, the black community is VERY anti-gay. Much of it ties into the firm place that religion has in that community, but there are issues of machismo that probably stem from having to prove one's worth as a black man during post-slavery and pre-civil rights years. So, thanks, whitey. And thanks to our forefathers for bringing slavery over her instead of seeing it for the evil it was.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Avast!
Did you miss it? Yesterday (Sept 19) was National Talk Like a Pirate Day.
Being a gay pirate is a lot of fun - you can say "booty" a lot and not get into any trouble. "Walking the plank" can take on new meanings.
Remember, it's ARRRRR, not ARRRGGGHHH. You're not in pain.
Being a gay pirate is a lot of fun - you can say "booty" a lot and not get into any trouble. "Walking the plank" can take on new meanings.
Remember, it's ARRRRR, not ARRRGGGHHH. You're not in pain.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Rise Up, Californians
Oh, get your mind out of the gutter. If you live in California, do everything you can to shut down the governor's phone, email, fax machine, and offices. Demand he sign the marriage equality bill or request a recall. Have thousands of people storming his office, filling up lobbies and offices. Please, for all of our sakes, do something.
Rex Wockner has been following this news at his blog and the kinds of "demonstrations" and "protests" held (and I'm a firm believer that picketing and public protests don't do much) have been weak. Don't pick up a sign; pick up a phone. Pick up your feet and march yourself and a ton of your friends and family and coworkers into his office.
You're not just doing this for California gays, but all American gays. This is an important step for all of us. Failure to act, failure to confront Arnold head-on, failure to call for his metaphorical head on a pike is a concession to the idea that we are limp-wristed pansies and don't deserve to be treated like decent Americans.
Rex Wockner has been following this news at his blog and the kinds of "demonstrations" and "protests" held (and I'm a firm believer that picketing and public protests don't do much) have been weak. Don't pick up a sign; pick up a phone. Pick up your feet and march yourself and a ton of your friends and family and coworkers into his office.
You're not just doing this for California gays, but all American gays. This is an important step for all of us. Failure to act, failure to confront Arnold head-on, failure to call for his metaphorical head on a pike is a concession to the idea that we are limp-wristed pansies and don't deserve to be treated like decent Americans.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Terminating Equal Rights
Should I now introduce Mr. Egg to Mr. Face? Not long after my last post, where I trumpted the value and virtue of gay equality through legislative processes rather than judicial ones, the Governator strikes down via veto the California legislature's marriage equality bill. It's a matter for the courts or the people, he insists. (This, of course, runs contrary to what Dubya has been telling us, which is that it's a matter for the legislature. Make up your minds Republicans.)And, oh, hey, Arnold, legislators are the voice and will of the people - they are the people's duly elected officials designated to speak for them.
Despite what Arnold says, he's no friend to gays. He clearly doesn't respect our rights or equality as fellow Americans (many, if not most of us, naturally born Americans, Mr. Naturalized). He should be bold enough to just admit it instead of pretending otherwise.
I still don't think I'm wrong in my earlier assertion, however. This is slow and tedious work. Part of the backlash we experienced was because of the amount of progress we made in a very slow time (as well as how that progress was made). Arnold shouldn't have rejected the bill; I suppose not enough legislators voted for it to override his veto? Or do things work that differently in California? In any case, the trick will be to keep pushing it through. Yes, I want equality and I want it now, but that timeline has a cost that may be too heavy. Even if we get "it" now, if it's rushed through without adequate support, we could lose it later or lose out in other arenas. And just because a law is passed, doesn't mean it's always enforced. That's why we need proper support and the time to create support.
I certainly don't believe that minority rights should be put before a vote of the people. Why would the majority grant you access into their club? Why should they let you into their swimming pool? This is what legislative and, yes, court action is for.
I don't mean to say that courts have no place in this process. They certainly do and they've certainly made a difference, but we can't have all of our decisions finalized this way. In California's case, since the governor is leaving it to the courts, that may be a proper venue for the courts to decide. I still don't think that's the best place for it to happen, but California may have just proven there's enough home support so that backlash is minimized (at least in-state). Still, a court decision would be just the rallying cry, much like Massachusetts's case was, for the far right nationally.
One solution, not so out there, is to remove Arnold and elect a governor who will do the right thing and sign the bill. That would certainly speak volumes about how the people of California feel about gay equality.
Despite what Arnold says, he's no friend to gays. He clearly doesn't respect our rights or equality as fellow Americans (many, if not most of us, naturally born Americans, Mr. Naturalized). He should be bold enough to just admit it instead of pretending otherwise.
I still don't think I'm wrong in my earlier assertion, however. This is slow and tedious work. Part of the backlash we experienced was because of the amount of progress we made in a very slow time (as well as how that progress was made). Arnold shouldn't have rejected the bill; I suppose not enough legislators voted for it to override his veto? Or do things work that differently in California? In any case, the trick will be to keep pushing it through. Yes, I want equality and I want it now, but that timeline has a cost that may be too heavy. Even if we get "it" now, if it's rushed through without adequate support, we could lose it later or lose out in other arenas. And just because a law is passed, doesn't mean it's always enforced. That's why we need proper support and the time to create support.
I certainly don't believe that minority rights should be put before a vote of the people. Why would the majority grant you access into their club? Why should they let you into their swimming pool? This is what legislative and, yes, court action is for.
I don't mean to say that courts have no place in this process. They certainly do and they've certainly made a difference, but we can't have all of our decisions finalized this way. In California's case, since the governor is leaving it to the courts, that may be a proper venue for the courts to decide. I still don't think that's the best place for it to happen, but California may have just proven there's enough home support so that backlash is minimized (at least in-state). Still, a court decision would be just the rallying cry, much like Massachusetts's case was, for the far right nationally.
One solution, not so out there, is to remove Arnold and elect a governor who will do the right thing and sign the bill. That would certainly speak volumes about how the people of California feel about gay equality.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
And Chief Justice for All
Is John Roberts a good choice for the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice? Will he support gay civil equality? How will he choose to interpret the Constitution? It's hard to know right now. Unfortunately, that hasn't prevented some organizations from coming out and opposing his nomination already.
HRC, NGLTF and PFLAG have already taken the unwise step or rejecting Roberts's nomination. Lambda Legal has instead sent a list of questions to senators that they feel need asking prior to making a decision. These questions are broad-reaching and go beyond simply how Roberts would vote for gay civic equality. They ask important questions relevant to all Americans, but particularly important are questions regarding Robert's view of the right to privacy and how he interprets the Constitution.
Until we hear how he answers these questions, it's very difficult to know if he's a good choice. He may very well be a bad choice; or he may end up being more moderate than we expect. There is some hint of promise in his prior legal work. Many of the criticisms those three organizations level against Roberts object to how he views the power of the courts. Although I agree with some of the criticisms against him, I also believe that for too long we have relied on the courts to rectify civil injustice.
I believe that some of the backlash we have experienced is because we have failed to convince our representatives, our senators, our neighbors, our colleagues, our friends and families of the need to pass legislation supportive to our civil rights. Instead, we've fallen back on the courts without bothering to win public approval; it's proven to be a costly mistake in the past couple of years as anti-gay legislation HAS passed. It's a clear signal that we need to worry less about how justices view the role of courts and more about how we rally legislators and the public to our side.
I also have to think that Roberts isn't the most conservative person that could have been nominated. Do we really think that Bush is going to nominate a true moderate? He hasn't made any other type of concession to non-Republicans or non-conservatives. What makes us think defeating Roberts will make Bush pull a better choice out of his hat. I think we need to strongly consider if Roberts may be the best choice we can expect.
I certainly hope these organizations aren't reacting simply because it's Bush's first choice. I also hope they aren't acting out a sense of doing what they hope will be popular, rather than prudent. PFLAG I give some latitude in this area, and some less to NGLTF, but I extend almost no credit to the HRC, which seems to jump on every bandwagon they think will make them look like they're actually doing something.
Roberts could prove to be a disasterous choice for not just gay Americans, but all of our country. But we need more information first. "Bush" usually does equal "bad" but this is a choice we must seriously and thoroughly consider before pronouncing judgment.
HRC, NGLTF and PFLAG have already taken the unwise step or rejecting Roberts's nomination. Lambda Legal has instead sent a list of questions to senators that they feel need asking prior to making a decision. These questions are broad-reaching and go beyond simply how Roberts would vote for gay civic equality. They ask important questions relevant to all Americans, but particularly important are questions regarding Robert's view of the right to privacy and how he interprets the Constitution.
Until we hear how he answers these questions, it's very difficult to know if he's a good choice. He may very well be a bad choice; or he may end up being more moderate than we expect. There is some hint of promise in his prior legal work. Many of the criticisms those three organizations level against Roberts object to how he views the power of the courts. Although I agree with some of the criticisms against him, I also believe that for too long we have relied on the courts to rectify civil injustice.
I believe that some of the backlash we have experienced is because we have failed to convince our representatives, our senators, our neighbors, our colleagues, our friends and families of the need to pass legislation supportive to our civil rights. Instead, we've fallen back on the courts without bothering to win public approval; it's proven to be a costly mistake in the past couple of years as anti-gay legislation HAS passed. It's a clear signal that we need to worry less about how justices view the role of courts and more about how we rally legislators and the public to our side.
I also have to think that Roberts isn't the most conservative person that could have been nominated. Do we really think that Bush is going to nominate a true moderate? He hasn't made any other type of concession to non-Republicans or non-conservatives. What makes us think defeating Roberts will make Bush pull a better choice out of his hat. I think we need to strongly consider if Roberts may be the best choice we can expect.
I certainly hope these organizations aren't reacting simply because it's Bush's first choice. I also hope they aren't acting out a sense of doing what they hope will be popular, rather than prudent. PFLAG I give some latitude in this area, and some less to NGLTF, but I extend almost no credit to the HRC, which seems to jump on every bandwagon they think will make them look like they're actually doing something.
Roberts could prove to be a disasterous choice for not just gay Americans, but all of our country. But we need more information first. "Bush" usually does equal "bad" but this is a choice we must seriously and thoroughly consider before pronouncing judgment.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Staggering
I'm simply stunned at the devastation caused by Katrina. I have friends and close family in some of the hardest hit areas. Although I know my family is safe, I don't know if their property survived. I have no word on my friends.
When something like this happens, it's always tragic, but when you know people involved, it makes it that much more personal. I'm moved by many of the stories I have heard the past few days - stories that are simply amazing. I hope against hope that things turn out fine for my friends who live in Gulfport. Although I feel confident they are alive, I worry about their house. I worry for my grandparents' house near New Orleans.
I find myself thinking strange thoughts, such as I wish the hurricane weren't named after a friend of mine, although it fits in some ways. The Katrina I know is a large woman, not fat, but more of a linebacker build. I can laugh that for such a large storm, the name is appropriate, but my friend is one of the most gentle people I know and this destruction doesn't warrant her name applied to it.
When something like this happens, it's always tragic, but when you know people involved, it makes it that much more personal. I'm moved by many of the stories I have heard the past few days - stories that are simply amazing. I hope against hope that things turn out fine for my friends who live in Gulfport. Although I feel confident they are alive, I worry about their house. I worry for my grandparents' house near New Orleans.
I find myself thinking strange thoughts, such as I wish the hurricane weren't named after a friend of mine, although it fits in some ways. The Katrina I know is a large woman, not fat, but more of a linebacker build. I can laugh that for such a large storm, the name is appropriate, but my friend is one of the most gentle people I know and this destruction doesn't warrant her name applied to it.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Is it a good time to be gay?
I often wonder if this is a good time to be gay. It seems like we have the most tolerance and acceptance than ever before, including more recognition of our rights from companies and states, yet the attention and outpouring of hatred towards gays and lesbians must be at an all time high.
Sometimes I wonder if it was easier when it was something nobody talked about. People may or may not have known, but it was left unsaid. People weren't out campaigning to not just prevent you from having the same rights as they enjoy, but to make your life a crime. Worse, people weren't using you as an excuse to gain power and influence, raise money, or advance their own political agenda. Certainly it happened to a certain extent, but not on the national scale it has now, when our civil rights are threatened and I've more than once thought seriously about moving abroad. Not to be histrionic, but there have been days when I genuinely felt as if one more step to the right could land gays in concentration camps.
I have no doubt this will pass eventually and one day, Americans will look back on this time and think about how primitive we were as a society. So, yes, in many ways, I believe that today is better or will at least lead to better times. It's just a tad uncomfortable living under heat of the spotlight.
Sometimes I wonder if it was easier when it was something nobody talked about. People may or may not have known, but it was left unsaid. People weren't out campaigning to not just prevent you from having the same rights as they enjoy, but to make your life a crime. Worse, people weren't using you as an excuse to gain power and influence, raise money, or advance their own political agenda. Certainly it happened to a certain extent, but not on the national scale it has now, when our civil rights are threatened and I've more than once thought seriously about moving abroad. Not to be histrionic, but there have been days when I genuinely felt as if one more step to the right could land gays in concentration camps.
I have no doubt this will pass eventually and one day, Americans will look back on this time and think about how primitive we were as a society. So, yes, in many ways, I believe that today is better or will at least lead to better times. It's just a tad uncomfortable living under heat of the spotlight.
Quote Unquote
I was quite pleased with myself for coming up with "never piss off a drag queen" while facilitating a Safe Zone presentation on Monday. I was describing the Stonewall riot; at the end of the workshop my co-facilitator announced an annual campus drag show participants could attend and I reminded the group that, if they went, to "not piss off the drag queens."
Here's some more interesting and original quotes, courtesy of Rex Wockner. I love Matt Foreman's statement:
There has been zero negative effect. The only people who have beenaffected by the decision to allow same-sex marriages [in Massachusetts]are a few people who lived across the street from a couple of lesbiansand had to buy them wedding presents. That is clear to people inMassachusetts. No one -- credibly -- argues now that this has had anegative effect on anybody. We knew that would be the case."--Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to the Seattle Gay News, July 29.
"We have sanitized and intellectualized our cause to the point ofabstraction. Our argument is always about -- you know, you get a betterdental plan if you're married. Stuff like that. But marriage is just acode word. The fight is really: Are we equal humans in society or not?The right wing goes for the gut and we respond in this completelysterile way, talking about academic issues like the 1,038 rights thatare denied us. It's kind of like John Kerry in the presidential race."--National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman tothe Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 13.
Here's some more interesting and original quotes, courtesy of Rex Wockner. I love Matt Foreman's statement:
There has been zero negative effect. The only people who have beenaffected by the decision to allow same-sex marriages [in Massachusetts]are a few people who lived across the street from a couple of lesbiansand had to buy them wedding presents. That is clear to people inMassachusetts. No one -- credibly -- argues now that this has had anegative effect on anybody. We knew that would be the case."--Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to the Seattle Gay News, July 29.
"We have sanitized and intellectualized our cause to the point ofabstraction. Our argument is always about -- you know, you get a betterdental plan if you're married. Stuff like that. But marriage is just acode word. The fight is really: Are we equal humans in society or not?The right wing goes for the gut and we respond in this completelysterile way, talking about academic issues like the 1,038 rights thatare denied us. It's kind of like John Kerry in the presidential race."--National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman tothe Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 13.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
King for a Day
While reviewing some speeches for a class I teach on leadership, I was re-reading Dr. Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech. One segment, not usually heard during re-broadcasts of the speech, caught my attention. It spoke to me about my position on gay marriage. The question about whether to accept civil unions as a stepping stone to full marriage rights has been hotly debated among gays and lesbians. Although I used to go back and forth on this issue, during the past few years I have stood firmly in the belief that we should settle for nothing less than full equality. Dr. King's speech has solidly galvanized that belief.
With a few simple substitutions, it's easy to relate Dr. King's passion to gay America's current situation:
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
Unfortunately, we have not done enough revolting. Gays and lesbians have not been sufficiently malcontent. We have failed to grasp the "fierce urgency of Now." We are far too complacent. We are content to be the modern Sambo, the helper to the straight man and woman: the servant, the maid, the footstool, whose only value is in helping straight people to get a leg up on us and others.
We are also too divided. Our national organizations are not sufficiently united and some have lost their way. We, as a community, fail to come together and agree on what is important. We fail to realize that while I may not want something, it can still be good for others. And, if I support a cause that doesn't directly impact me, my brothers and sisters should do the same for me. We also face a silent enemy; we must deal with traitors in our midst. Men and women, particularly those in power, who refuse to deal with their sexuality for whatever reason are a threat. This doesn't exclude the closet politicians who pass anti-gay legislation; every man and woman who fails to be honest and open about their sexuality (and I realize some for safety reasons cannot, but the vast majority of our people certainly do not have to fear this) damages our cause.
In ending, I'll now take a page from the flip side of Dr. King and quote from a less striden passage from Malcolm X's "ballot or bullet" speech. I've substituted "queer" for "black" and "straight" for "white":
Billy Graham comes in preaching the gospel of Christ. He evangelizes the gospel. He stirs everybody up, but he never tries to start a church. If he came in trying to start a church, all the churches would be against him. So, he just comes in talking about Christ and tells everybody who gets Christ to go to any church where Christ is; and in this way the church cooperates with him. So we're going to take a page from his book.
Our gospel is queer nationalism. We're not trying to threaten the existence of any organization, but we're spreading the gospel of queer nationalism. Anywhere there's a church that is also preaching and practicing the gospel of quuer nationalism, join that church. ... Join any organization that has a gospel that's for the uplift of the quuer man. And when you get into it and see them pussyfooting or compromising, pull out of it because that's not queer nationalism. We'll find another one.
And in this manner, the organizations will increase in number and in quantity and in quality, and by August, it is then our intention to have a queer nationalist convention which will consist of delegates from all over the country who are interested in the political, economic and social philosophy of queer nationalism. After these delegates convene, we will hold a seminar; we will hold discussions; we will listen to everyone. We want to hear new ideas and new solutions and new answers. And at that time, if we see fit then to form a queer nationalist party, we'll form a queer nationalist party.
Now in speaking like this, it doesn't mean that we're anti-straight, but it does mean we're anti-exploitation, we're anti-degradation, we're anti-oppression. And if the straight man doesn't want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us. Whether we are Christians or Muslims or nationalists or agnostics or atheists, we must first learn to forget our differences. If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man. If the late President Kennedy could get together with Khrushchev and exchange some wheat, we certainly have more in common with each other than Kennedy and Khrushchev had with each other.
The text for these speeches was found on American Rhetoric.com. You can read the full text of these speeches as well as listen to them at that website.
With a few simple substitutions, it's easy to relate Dr. King's passion to gay America's current situation:
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
Unfortunately, we have not done enough revolting. Gays and lesbians have not been sufficiently malcontent. We have failed to grasp the "fierce urgency of Now." We are far too complacent. We are content to be the modern Sambo, the helper to the straight man and woman: the servant, the maid, the footstool, whose only value is in helping straight people to get a leg up on us and others.
We are also too divided. Our national organizations are not sufficiently united and some have lost their way. We, as a community, fail to come together and agree on what is important. We fail to realize that while I may not want something, it can still be good for others. And, if I support a cause that doesn't directly impact me, my brothers and sisters should do the same for me. We also face a silent enemy; we must deal with traitors in our midst. Men and women, particularly those in power, who refuse to deal with their sexuality for whatever reason are a threat. This doesn't exclude the closet politicians who pass anti-gay legislation; every man and woman who fails to be honest and open about their sexuality (and I realize some for safety reasons cannot, but the vast majority of our people certainly do not have to fear this) damages our cause.
In ending, I'll now take a page from the flip side of Dr. King and quote from a less striden passage from Malcolm X's "ballot or bullet" speech. I've substituted "queer" for "black" and "straight" for "white":
Billy Graham comes in preaching the gospel of Christ. He evangelizes the gospel. He stirs everybody up, but he never tries to start a church. If he came in trying to start a church, all the churches would be against him. So, he just comes in talking about Christ and tells everybody who gets Christ to go to any church where Christ is; and in this way the church cooperates with him. So we're going to take a page from his book.
Our gospel is queer nationalism. We're not trying to threaten the existence of any organization, but we're spreading the gospel of queer nationalism. Anywhere there's a church that is also preaching and practicing the gospel of quuer nationalism, join that church. ... Join any organization that has a gospel that's for the uplift of the quuer man. And when you get into it and see them pussyfooting or compromising, pull out of it because that's not queer nationalism. We'll find another one.
And in this manner, the organizations will increase in number and in quantity and in quality, and by August, it is then our intention to have a queer nationalist convention which will consist of delegates from all over the country who are interested in the political, economic and social philosophy of queer nationalism. After these delegates convene, we will hold a seminar; we will hold discussions; we will listen to everyone. We want to hear new ideas and new solutions and new answers. And at that time, if we see fit then to form a queer nationalist party, we'll form a queer nationalist party.
Now in speaking like this, it doesn't mean that we're anti-straight, but it does mean we're anti-exploitation, we're anti-degradation, we're anti-oppression. And if the straight man doesn't want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us. Whether we are Christians or Muslims or nationalists or agnostics or atheists, we must first learn to forget our differences. If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man. If the late President Kennedy could get together with Khrushchev and exchange some wheat, we certainly have more in common with each other than Kennedy and Khrushchev had with each other.
The text for these speeches was found on American Rhetoric.com. You can read the full text of these speeches as well as listen to them at that website.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Weird Science
How cool is this? I participated in the MIT blog survey!
What to be part of an important (well, I'm just assuming here) academic survey?
Sure you do! Click the tag below.
What to be part of an important (well, I'm just assuming here) academic survey?
Sure you do! Click the tag below.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Common Cents: Victories Abroad and Small Steps at Home
Well, something to celebrate as both Spain and Canada legalize same-sex marriage (and Spain legalized gay adoption also - so go adopt all those gay babies).
The United Church of Christ is on the verge of passing a resolution this week in Atlanta that will support of same-sex marriage, making it the first mainstream religion to do so. You may remember them from this fantastic commercial proclaiming their acceptance of diverse congregational members. It was so controversial CBS and NBC refused to air because of it's radical message.
Less celebratory, but just as interesting is that Bush appointed openly gay Israel Hernandez, (better known to Bushies as "Altoid Boy" for his supplying of Dubya with mints) as Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
The United Church of Christ is on the verge of passing a resolution this week in Atlanta that will support of same-sex marriage, making it the first mainstream religion to do so. You may remember them from this fantastic commercial proclaiming their acceptance of diverse congregational members. It was so controversial CBS and NBC refused to air because of it's radical message.
Less celebratory, but just as interesting is that Bush appointed openly gay Israel Hernandez, (better known to Bushies as "Altoid Boy" for his supplying of Dubya with mints) as Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
Living La Vida Queero
Here I am back again on the bitch train apparently. But yet another item has struck a nerve.
I was listening to our local NPR call-in radio talk show when a nervous caller offered to the program host that there are people who have found Jesus and left the "gay lifestyle." The caller seemed nervous and not quite fully convinced of his own assertion, but the host was gentle and asked if he left the "lifestyle" because he was unhappy because of external pressure. No, the caller replied, the pressure and unhappiness was all internal. He just prayed about it and got religion and left it behind him.
One, I hate the term "gay lifestyle." That doesn't even mean anything. Are you referring to sex with men, or more specifically my husband? That's a fraction of my life that is no different from anybody else with a spouse. And prior to having a husband? Don't tell me straight people don't have sex with non-spouses.
Drugs? Ibuprofen here and there. Booze? I drink every third blue moon. Clubbing? Sorry, don't have any baby seals around here.
Perhaps you refer to my tastefully decorated house? You're certainly not suggesting it's about my fairly conservative Old Navy polos and Dockers khaki pants. Although you might mean choice of snazzy Bass buckle loafers.
I'm not sure what kind of lifestyle I have. I guess it's quasi-yuppish for the most part. Other than that, I have no idea.
The only people who feel the need to leave "the gay lifestyle" are those who have bought into all the messages that something is wrong with them. These are the people who, if they were politicians, would be hiding in the closet while trying to kill gay civil rights legislation. They hate themselves.
Or, they've allowed themselves to think that their choice to drink heavily, consume illegal drugs, or have risky and/or promiscuous sex is because they are gay. Everybody else blames all the bad stuff on being gay, why not hang your alcoholism or lack of personal responsibility on that hook too? Face it, if you were straight, you'd still be doing the same things, only you've convinced yourself that your problem isn't that you are a slut, but that you are gay.
I would feel bad for these people, but I'm tired of them telling me and others that their personal problem is a truism about me and my, I'm not afraid to brag, very well put together life.
I was listening to our local NPR call-in radio talk show when a nervous caller offered to the program host that there are people who have found Jesus and left the "gay lifestyle." The caller seemed nervous and not quite fully convinced of his own assertion, but the host was gentle and asked if he left the "lifestyle" because he was unhappy because of external pressure. No, the caller replied, the pressure and unhappiness was all internal. He just prayed about it and got religion and left it behind him.
One, I hate the term "gay lifestyle." That doesn't even mean anything. Are you referring to sex with men, or more specifically my husband? That's a fraction of my life that is no different from anybody else with a spouse. And prior to having a husband? Don't tell me straight people don't have sex with non-spouses.
Drugs? Ibuprofen here and there. Booze? I drink every third blue moon. Clubbing? Sorry, don't have any baby seals around here.
Perhaps you refer to my tastefully decorated house? You're certainly not suggesting it's about my fairly conservative Old Navy polos and Dockers khaki pants. Although you might mean choice of snazzy Bass buckle loafers.
I'm not sure what kind of lifestyle I have. I guess it's quasi-yuppish for the most part. Other than that, I have no idea.
The only people who feel the need to leave "the gay lifestyle" are those who have bought into all the messages that something is wrong with them. These are the people who, if they were politicians, would be hiding in the closet while trying to kill gay civil rights legislation. They hate themselves.
Or, they've allowed themselves to think that their choice to drink heavily, consume illegal drugs, or have risky and/or promiscuous sex is because they are gay. Everybody else blames all the bad stuff on being gay, why not hang your alcoholism or lack of personal responsibility on that hook too? Face it, if you were straight, you'd still be doing the same things, only you've convinced yourself that your problem isn't that you are a slut, but that you are gay.
I would feel bad for these people, but I'm tired of them telling me and others that their personal problem is a truism about me and my, I'm not afraid to brag, very well put together life.
Monday, June 13, 2005
A Wake Up Call for the Gay Community
Hiltons to be grand marshals of L.A. Pride parade
Associated Press Friday, June 10, 2005 / 06:33 PM
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -- Paris Hilton and her mother, Kathy, will be
grand marshals for the annual Gay Pride parade, one of the city's biggest celebrations.
They will greet tens of thousands of people expected Sunday at the Los
Angeles Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender Pride Parade.
Paris Hilton, the 24-year-old star of television's "The Simple Life" reality show, provoked controversy recently by appearing scantily clad in a Carl's Jr. burger commercial.
The hotel heiress is engaged to Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis, a grandson of John Latsis, the last of Greece's shipping billionaires from the postwar boom years, who died in 2003 at 93.
This news clip exemplifies perfectly to me a problem in the modern gay community. We are, and have been for a while, failing to be the activists we need to be in order to secure not just legal rights, but societal respect and acceptance.
Pride parades have become another meaningless entertainment venue, devoid of any purpose other than to get nekkid, scare the straights, and get tweaked. Instead of putting some person of value and significance, we put up a sleazy whore who has no redeeming social value, not to mention not even any celebrity of worth or entertainment value.
She is a non-person, a non-entity, a non-celebrity. To quote a recent book on teen girls, the only reason Hilton has been put up on a pedestal is so men can look up her skirt. Why gay men (or any self-respecting lesbian) would look up to her other than to reinforce the pervasive stereotype that we are also sleazy whores is beyond me.
And so once again we buy into our own internalized homophobia. We celebrate not that which makes us special or valuable, but our most base aspect, the societal spectre that follows us and seeks to destroy us as a people not worth respect or dignity or legal rights.
We fail to make a statement other than an addiction to the sexual and the shallow. We fail to be activists and retreat into the safety and denial of a stereotype that emphasizes sex and shallowness. And it must be right; we embrace those values in the choice of Paris Hilton.
We have grown accustomed to being denied rights so long as they don't shut down the bathouses. We have accepted being seen as living demons and spreaders of perversion and disease so long as they don't call us queer and fag. We have allowed ourselves to be the gay Steppin Fetchit.
Associated Press Friday, June 10, 2005 / 06:33 PM
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -- Paris Hilton and her mother, Kathy, will be
grand marshals for the annual Gay Pride parade, one of the city's biggest celebrations.
They will greet tens of thousands of people expected Sunday at the Los
Angeles Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender Pride Parade.
Paris Hilton, the 24-year-old star of television's "The Simple Life" reality show, provoked controversy recently by appearing scantily clad in a Carl's Jr. burger commercial.
The hotel heiress is engaged to Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis, a grandson of John Latsis, the last of Greece's shipping billionaires from the postwar boom years, who died in 2003 at 93.
This news clip exemplifies perfectly to me a problem in the modern gay community. We are, and have been for a while, failing to be the activists we need to be in order to secure not just legal rights, but societal respect and acceptance.
Pride parades have become another meaningless entertainment venue, devoid of any purpose other than to get nekkid, scare the straights, and get tweaked. Instead of putting some person of value and significance, we put up a sleazy whore who has no redeeming social value, not to mention not even any celebrity of worth or entertainment value.
She is a non-person, a non-entity, a non-celebrity. To quote a recent book on teen girls, the only reason Hilton has been put up on a pedestal is so men can look up her skirt. Why gay men (or any self-respecting lesbian) would look up to her other than to reinforce the pervasive stereotype that we are also sleazy whores is beyond me.
And so once again we buy into our own internalized homophobia. We celebrate not that which makes us special or valuable, but our most base aspect, the societal spectre that follows us and seeks to destroy us as a people not worth respect or dignity or legal rights.
We fail to make a statement other than an addiction to the sexual and the shallow. We fail to be activists and retreat into the safety and denial of a stereotype that emphasizes sex and shallowness. And it must be right; we embrace those values in the choice of Paris Hilton.
We have grown accustomed to being denied rights so long as they don't shut down the bathouses. We have accepted being seen as living demons and spreaders of perversion and disease so long as they don't call us queer and fag. We have allowed ourselves to be the gay Steppin Fetchit.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Crash Coarse
Everyone's a little bit racist, or so the Avenue Q song goes. That's certainly the main conceit of the recent movie Crash, which puts a not-so-fine of a point on that idea.
Crash, much like its name, is anything but subtle. It paints in broad, course strokes, only occasionally using a more understated approach. Not only is everyone racist, but almost everyone is a raving bigot and aren't afraid to express their bigotry. A gun shop owner has no problem insulting the Persian man purchasing a weapon from him and then denying him the purchase. A black police detective doesn't hesitate to demean his Latina partner and lover. A black wife and husband freely hurl invective at each other about how black the other actually is. And everybody is down on the Hispanic locksmith.
Which is not to suggest that the movie is entirely inaccurate. Modern racism tends to be more subtle and insidious than the coarse verbalization found in the movie, but the thoughts and perspectives expressed are certainly valid representations of the way many people think or feel. Although reflected in real life, the movie does take easy shortcuts in dealing with bigotry. The affluent city DA is politically correct in the worst sense; he cares more about surface perception that actually dealing with true racial problems. His wife recoils from any non-white, mortified of any minority after they car-jacked. Racism is also a bit too neat: Americans hate Muslims, black and white people hate each other; black and Asian people hate each other; LA police are corrupt, white and black, etc.
Even with these shortcuts, the film is not devoid of complexity. Just as virtually everybody is racist, so is no one person made completely evil. Even the most compromised characters possess some degree of virtuousness. Characters have to learn to compromise and deal with each other despite their problems and differences. Although perhaps overly simple, paradoxically a complex web of connectivity is created among the principle characters.
Yet it is this simplistic six degrees of separation that is the point to be taken away here. The title of the movie does not apply to car crashes, indeed there are only three crashes: one at the beginning, one slightly over half-way through the movie, and one at the end (and interestingly enough the end crash is the only crash we actually see happen). The movie opens with a line by Don Cheadle who speculates that people crash their cars into each other to have contact with other people that is missing in every day life. Indeed, Crash refers to the way we have the potential to crash into each other culturally. Instead of choosing to reach out in equality and with an open-mind, we choose to be hurtful and oblivious to the people around us. As much of the cultural destruction that happens is purposeful, an equal amount is the failure to see beyond our own cultural filters and lenses.
Ultimately we witness the destruction that our self-imposed isolation (both physical and cultural) brings about in both the lives of others and in our society. Although this point is brought home with a hammer, Crash does seek to raise the audience's awareness of the personal and larger consequences of failing to understand and interact with our fellow human beings. Crash could have been more interesting by playing with the more internalized and subtle aspects of racism. Some of the sub-plot and character development outcomes could have shown more meaningful results (will Sandra Bullock's spoiled rich white woman's revelation truly lead to her making her housekeeper's life better?)
Crash does offer a highly intense and thought-provoking experience that does captivate the audience. And, interestingly, at least in the theater where I saw it, drew perhaps the most diverse crowd I have ever seen at any movie. Crash has the potential to bring about meaningful dialogue and could open doors not normally open for multicultural understanding.
Crash, much like its name, is anything but subtle. It paints in broad, course strokes, only occasionally using a more understated approach. Not only is everyone racist, but almost everyone is a raving bigot and aren't afraid to express their bigotry. A gun shop owner has no problem insulting the Persian man purchasing a weapon from him and then denying him the purchase. A black police detective doesn't hesitate to demean his Latina partner and lover. A black wife and husband freely hurl invective at each other about how black the other actually is. And everybody is down on the Hispanic locksmith.
Which is not to suggest that the movie is entirely inaccurate. Modern racism tends to be more subtle and insidious than the coarse verbalization found in the movie, but the thoughts and perspectives expressed are certainly valid representations of the way many people think or feel. Although reflected in real life, the movie does take easy shortcuts in dealing with bigotry. The affluent city DA is politically correct in the worst sense; he cares more about surface perception that actually dealing with true racial problems. His wife recoils from any non-white, mortified of any minority after they car-jacked. Racism is also a bit too neat: Americans hate Muslims, black and white people hate each other; black and Asian people hate each other; LA police are corrupt, white and black, etc.
Even with these shortcuts, the film is not devoid of complexity. Just as virtually everybody is racist, so is no one person made completely evil. Even the most compromised characters possess some degree of virtuousness. Characters have to learn to compromise and deal with each other despite their problems and differences. Although perhaps overly simple, paradoxically a complex web of connectivity is created among the principle characters.
Yet it is this simplistic six degrees of separation that is the point to be taken away here. The title of the movie does not apply to car crashes, indeed there are only three crashes: one at the beginning, one slightly over half-way through the movie, and one at the end (and interestingly enough the end crash is the only crash we actually see happen). The movie opens with a line by Don Cheadle who speculates that people crash their cars into each other to have contact with other people that is missing in every day life. Indeed, Crash refers to the way we have the potential to crash into each other culturally. Instead of choosing to reach out in equality and with an open-mind, we choose to be hurtful and oblivious to the people around us. As much of the cultural destruction that happens is purposeful, an equal amount is the failure to see beyond our own cultural filters and lenses.
Ultimately we witness the destruction that our self-imposed isolation (both physical and cultural) brings about in both the lives of others and in our society. Although this point is brought home with a hammer, Crash does seek to raise the audience's awareness of the personal and larger consequences of failing to understand and interact with our fellow human beings. Crash could have been more interesting by playing with the more internalized and subtle aspects of racism. Some of the sub-plot and character development outcomes could have shown more meaningful results (will Sandra Bullock's spoiled rich white woman's revelation truly lead to her making her housekeeper's life better?)
Crash does offer a highly intense and thought-provoking experience that does captivate the audience. And, interestingly, at least in the theater where I saw it, drew perhaps the most diverse crowd I have ever seen at any movie. Crash has the potential to bring about meaningful dialogue and could open doors not normally open for multicultural understanding.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Mr. Postman
Post Secret is a blog that, in the name of an art project, encourages people to send in a secret, anonymously, on a post card. Most of the secrets have a graphic representation of the secret. Some seem too incredible to be true, yet surely the perverse imagination of these people is telling and insightful nonetheless.
Interestingly, more secrets than not it seems deal with deception as opposed to sheer covertness. The sender has lied rather than merely failed to disclose or kept hidden information or an aspect of their life. Many represent some sense of failure in life, a sense of incompleteness, a lack of achievement or worth of being: a reminder that ultimately most people just want love and acceptance.
Not surprisingly, a few deal with gay or gay-related themes, both amusingly ("I had gay sex at church camp. Three times") and tragically ("I spread rumors about my gay classmate to see how people would react if they found out about me"). Some postcards such as "I used to write poems and dream of being famous...now I just do drag" leave one wondering if the sender has made peace with his/her status or mourns lost (or perceived lost) potential.
Several of the postcards are humorous and may share a secret one can relate with (no, I won't share which ones), gay or straight. A a few are even uplifting: "I believe I will achieve something truly great in this lifetime. I am going to be 53 tomorrow."
Interestingly, more secrets than not it seems deal with deception as opposed to sheer covertness. The sender has lied rather than merely failed to disclose or kept hidden information or an aspect of their life. Many represent some sense of failure in life, a sense of incompleteness, a lack of achievement or worth of being: a reminder that ultimately most people just want love and acceptance.
Not surprisingly, a few deal with gay or gay-related themes, both amusingly ("I had gay sex at church camp. Three times") and tragically ("I spread rumors about my gay classmate to see how people would react if they found out about me"). Some postcards such as "I used to write poems and dream of being famous...now I just do drag" leave one wondering if the sender has made peace with his/her status or mourns lost (or perceived lost) potential.
Several of the postcards are humorous and may share a secret one can relate with (no, I won't share which ones), gay or straight. A a few are even uplifting: "I believe I will achieve something truly great in this lifetime. I am going to be 53 tomorrow."
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Out on a Limb
When is it appropriate to "out" one's self, if self is so inclined to do such things? As part of my interests and profession, I do not infrequently give presentations. I also teach a class. And, despite being an out and proud gay man, I often find myself wondering if and when it is appropriate to disclose my sexuality.
I am a firm believer in my need to be an example and role model to any gay men who may not already be out: that is ok to be out and that you can lead a happy, productive, fulfilled life as an out man. I also want any gay men in my class or workshop to feel like he has someone to talk to or ask questions to, if he might be looking for somebody else to connect with who has shared his experience: you can't tell who is gay just by looking at them, so connecting with each other can be difficult.
I don't, as a matter of course, just blurt it out. My sexuality usually only arises when doing some type of personal disclosure icebreaker or when I'm teaching on diversity or leadership. In class, I like to disclose realitively early because I'm about to spend a long few months with these people and if my sexuality is going to be a problem for a student, I'd like to save us both some small amount of trouble. Also, it provides me some shorthand; I don't have to back up when the person asks me during a casual conversation, "did you just say your husband?"
Of course part of me feels like it isn't anybody's business and certainly they don't have a right to know this about me. Some people would argue that it is inappropriate to disclose my sexuality; after all, heterosexuals don't flaunt their sexuality in class. But of course they do. They can talk, without thought or hesistation, about their girl/boyfriend or husband/wife. I, on the other hand, frequently think about what kind of ramificiations talking about my husband will have on the situation at hand. Announcing that I am gay has actually helped prevent some awkward situations. Of course it creates some too, but then I'm prepared for that and the perverse side of me enjoys the controversy I've just caused.
A recent uncomfortable moment happened when I was talking with a college student who mentioned that he had recently earned his Eagle Award as a Boy Scout. I was congratulating him and mentioned that I had been a Cub Scout, never taking the initiative to be a Boy Scout, butthat my husband was an Eagle Scout too and so I knew how much work went into that. The previously engaging conversation went stone dead at that point. The student became noticeably uncomfortable and so did I; I admittably was trying to put out there the message that gays are Boy Scouts too, but I was trying to be casual about it. Instead, I got the sound of crickets and an atomic bomb at the same time.
Outing myself early can produce interesting results: More often than not, I receive words of support and encouragement; sometimes people tell me about parents, siblings, or other relatives that are gay or lesbian.
Opening avenues for discussion on several levels is good, but what doI lose, if anything? Does outing myself early cut me off from people who would otherwise hear my message? Am I forgoing a relationship that could truly change a person's perspective later on after mutual trust and respect has been established?
Obviously, no easy answer exists. Appropriateness, motive, safety, educational opportunites, and convenience all converge to create a puzzle that must be solved differently on an almost daily basis. Being out involves regularly stepping out on a limb, hoping that you make a higher connection with people without the branch snapping under your feet.
I am a firm believer in my need to be an example and role model to any gay men who may not already be out: that is ok to be out and that you can lead a happy, productive, fulfilled life as an out man. I also want any gay men in my class or workshop to feel like he has someone to talk to or ask questions to, if he might be looking for somebody else to connect with who has shared his experience: you can't tell who is gay just by looking at them, so connecting with each other can be difficult.
I don't, as a matter of course, just blurt it out. My sexuality usually only arises when doing some type of personal disclosure icebreaker or when I'm teaching on diversity or leadership. In class, I like to disclose realitively early because I'm about to spend a long few months with these people and if my sexuality is going to be a problem for a student, I'd like to save us both some small amount of trouble. Also, it provides me some shorthand; I don't have to back up when the person asks me during a casual conversation, "did you just say your husband?"
Of course part of me feels like it isn't anybody's business and certainly they don't have a right to know this about me. Some people would argue that it is inappropriate to disclose my sexuality; after all, heterosexuals don't flaunt their sexuality in class. But of course they do. They can talk, without thought or hesistation, about their girl/boyfriend or husband/wife. I, on the other hand, frequently think about what kind of ramificiations talking about my husband will have on the situation at hand. Announcing that I am gay has actually helped prevent some awkward situations. Of course it creates some too, but then I'm prepared for that and the perverse side of me enjoys the controversy I've just caused.
A recent uncomfortable moment happened when I was talking with a college student who mentioned that he had recently earned his Eagle Award as a Boy Scout. I was congratulating him and mentioned that I had been a Cub Scout, never taking the initiative to be a Boy Scout, butthat my husband was an Eagle Scout too and so I knew how much work went into that. The previously engaging conversation went stone dead at that point. The student became noticeably uncomfortable and so did I; I admittably was trying to put out there the message that gays are Boy Scouts too, but I was trying to be casual about it. Instead, I got the sound of crickets and an atomic bomb at the same time.
Outing myself early can produce interesting results: More often than not, I receive words of support and encouragement; sometimes people tell me about parents, siblings, or other relatives that are gay or lesbian.
Opening avenues for discussion on several levels is good, but what doI lose, if anything? Does outing myself early cut me off from people who would otherwise hear my message? Am I forgoing a relationship that could truly change a person's perspective later on after mutual trust and respect has been established?
Obviously, no easy answer exists. Appropriateness, motive, safety, educational opportunites, and convenience all converge to create a puzzle that must be solved differently on an almost daily basis. Being out involves regularly stepping out on a limb, hoping that you make a higher connection with people without the branch snapping under your feet.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
To The Special Women in My Life
Congratulations to my sister, Lesley, for graduating college!
Lesley earned her BA in English, just like big brother. She looked dazzling in her new earrings and sassy in her cute shoes. Lesley was one of the first people I came out to and has been a wonderful support to me. She has also been an outspoken advocate for gay people in her college classes and with her peer group. She has gone beyond the call of simply being a loving sister and has acted as a true ally to me and my husband. Lesley was a great sister even before I came out and it's never been truer. She has a very bright future ahead of her as the loving, beautiful, and creative person that she is.
And I cannot forget Mom during the coming and passing of Mother's Day. Nobody could ask for a greater mother, truly. I remember during college commenting to a professor that my mother was probably an ISFJ (that's Myers-Briggs type if you don't know. You can go here to get something very much like it). My professor said that it was the perfect mom personality. That professor was right. I also hope that my sister and I take after our mom in the looks department; she's a vision of youth.
My deepest love to both of you.
Lesley earned her BA in English, just like big brother. She looked dazzling in her new earrings and sassy in her cute shoes. Lesley was one of the first people I came out to and has been a wonderful support to me. She has also been an outspoken advocate for gay people in her college classes and with her peer group. She has gone beyond the call of simply being a loving sister and has acted as a true ally to me and my husband. Lesley was a great sister even before I came out and it's never been truer. She has a very bright future ahead of her as the loving, beautiful, and creative person that she is.
And I cannot forget Mom during the coming and passing of Mother's Day. Nobody could ask for a greater mother, truly. I remember during college commenting to a professor that my mother was probably an ISFJ (that's Myers-Briggs type if you don't know. You can go here to get something very much like it). My professor said that it was the perfect mom personality. That professor was right. I also hope that my sister and I take after our mom in the looks department; she's a vision of youth.
My deepest love to both of you.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The Latte of Christ
I have frequently bemoaned the current trends in modern Christianity here. Fundamentalism has taken far too strong a grasp into the modern church. But, how has religous common sense been replaced by fantatical dogmatism? Part of that answer is the modern mega-church.
Many of the churches who have built congregations into the thousands are the churches putting forth ideas of non-acceptance and blind adoption of their tenets. Mega-churches are more like country clubs than places of worship; their popularity has been predicated on making congregants feel like members of an exclusive and priviledge elite. And part of your membership requirements is agreeing with what the church tells you to believe.
But why accept those tenets? What makes mega-churches so attractive in the first place? These exerpts from an article in the April 27th edition of the Washington Post reveal how:
For Church on the Move, one of the Bible Belt's fastest-growing nondenominational churches, the efforts to attract the next generation of believers comes at a 92,000-square-foot state-of-the-art community entertainment complex called Oneighty -- complete with basketball courts, 20 Apple iPod centers, 20 computers and countless video play stations suspended from the ceiling.
After listening to an hour-long sermon and Christian music performed by a 10-member rock band, students have full run of the place. It is a model that has been adopted by several hundred churches nationwide. "They make church fun," Ramiro Satoe, 13, said as he aggressively worked the race-car arcade game on a recent Wednesday night.
In the next few months, Church on the Move, which has 12,000 members, will renovate its lobby areas, putting in a cafe and conservation areas.
"We want to make our halls like Barnes & Noble -- feel at home, get here early, stay late . . . where we can talk about life issues, we can get to know each other," he said.
Indeed, gone are long fire-and-brimstone services. Wednesdays now tend to be more casual, social and personal -- a time to study the Bible, but also interact with like-minded worshipers who are often outnumbered on Sundays by what the devout church community calls the drop-in "seekers."
So, obviously the answer is: clever marketing and upper-middle class amenities. Really, ecclesiastical teaching has been replaced with Ipods, or at least made more interesting and palpable because you're sipping on a double mocha latte while listening to it. Also note the in-crowd attitude displayed by referring to Sunday-only worshippers as "drop-in 'seekers'." Sounds mildly condescending, doesn't it? These casual seekers aren't seen as being part of the truly committed, video-game playing, rock music listening church community.
I certainly don't begrudge a church providing entertainment outside of worship services and a comfortable environment for church members, but the whole purpose of church, to worship God and study God's teachings, seems to have taken a serious backseat in favor of church-malls and church-coffee shops. Malls and coffee shops where only the most devout and elite are truly welcome.
Thus are the politics of exclusion formed early in the fundamentalist world: through selective inclusion. So people who would probably be uncomfortable discussing homosexuality and gay issues but otherwise open become people who will not tolerate the moral threat posed by the "gay agenda." Their conversion from tolerant people to people who exclude others is predicated on their own fear that they will be excluded from their newfound church club of convenience and entertainment.
Membership to a church or participation in sanctified video games has overtaken the true practice of Christianity. The two have been great confused, as evidenced by this quote in the same Post article:
"Christians understand that church is not an activity -- it's a lifestyle," said Buddy George, a pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., home church of Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose-Driven Life."
Like many modern Christians, Pastor George has it wrong. Church is an activity. Christianity and worship is a lifestyle.
Many of the churches who have built congregations into the thousands are the churches putting forth ideas of non-acceptance and blind adoption of their tenets. Mega-churches are more like country clubs than places of worship; their popularity has been predicated on making congregants feel like members of an exclusive and priviledge elite. And part of your membership requirements is agreeing with what the church tells you to believe.
But why accept those tenets? What makes mega-churches so attractive in the first place? These exerpts from an article in the April 27th edition of the Washington Post reveal how:
For Church on the Move, one of the Bible Belt's fastest-growing nondenominational churches, the efforts to attract the next generation of believers comes at a 92,000-square-foot state-of-the-art community entertainment complex called Oneighty -- complete with basketball courts, 20 Apple iPod centers, 20 computers and countless video play stations suspended from the ceiling.
After listening to an hour-long sermon and Christian music performed by a 10-member rock band, students have full run of the place. It is a model that has been adopted by several hundred churches nationwide. "They make church fun," Ramiro Satoe, 13, said as he aggressively worked the race-car arcade game on a recent Wednesday night.
In the next few months, Church on the Move, which has 12,000 members, will renovate its lobby areas, putting in a cafe and conservation areas.
"We want to make our halls like Barnes & Noble -- feel at home, get here early, stay late . . . where we can talk about life issues, we can get to know each other," he said.
Indeed, gone are long fire-and-brimstone services. Wednesdays now tend to be more casual, social and personal -- a time to study the Bible, but also interact with like-minded worshipers who are often outnumbered on Sundays by what the devout church community calls the drop-in "seekers."
So, obviously the answer is: clever marketing and upper-middle class amenities. Really, ecclesiastical teaching has been replaced with Ipods, or at least made more interesting and palpable because you're sipping on a double mocha latte while listening to it. Also note the in-crowd attitude displayed by referring to Sunday-only worshippers as "drop-in 'seekers'." Sounds mildly condescending, doesn't it? These casual seekers aren't seen as being part of the truly committed, video-game playing, rock music listening church community.
I certainly don't begrudge a church providing entertainment outside of worship services and a comfortable environment for church members, but the whole purpose of church, to worship God and study God's teachings, seems to have taken a serious backseat in favor of church-malls and church-coffee shops. Malls and coffee shops where only the most devout and elite are truly welcome.
Thus are the politics of exclusion formed early in the fundamentalist world: through selective inclusion. So people who would probably be uncomfortable discussing homosexuality and gay issues but otherwise open become people who will not tolerate the moral threat posed by the "gay agenda." Their conversion from tolerant people to people who exclude others is predicated on their own fear that they will be excluded from their newfound church club of convenience and entertainment.
Membership to a church or participation in sanctified video games has overtaken the true practice of Christianity. The two have been great confused, as evidenced by this quote in the same Post article:
"Christians understand that church is not an activity -- it's a lifestyle," said Buddy George, a pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., home church of Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose-Driven Life."
Like many modern Christians, Pastor George has it wrong. Church is an activity. Christianity and worship is a lifestyle.
Friday, April 08, 2005
The Real Threat of Gay Marriage
NPR's weekly program This American Life recently dedicated its hour to the topic of "The Sanctity of Marriage." (Click the link and search for the title - you can listen to the whole program free.) The first section of the show covered the work of Dr. John Gottman, founder of the Gottman Institute. Dr. Gottman and his associates study predictors of marital success. They also teach the techniques that they have discovered to be successful in happily married couples
Gottman and his team observe couples that have been asked to discuss a topic they disagree on (and according to Dr. Gottman's research and common sense, all couples disagree on something (and usually about certain key subjects)) and then study that interaction. While the couple discusses the issue, researchers categorize every level of interaction: from what is actually said to how it is said (not just the emotion behind it but the rate, tone, pitch, volume, etc. of speech) to facial expressions and body language to how couples respond to each other.
Gottman's research includes same-sex couples. Dr. Gottman's research sample of same-sex couples is very small (21 lesbian and 21 gay male couples )but has produced interesting results. If the results are representative, straights could be in real trouble.
Dr. Gottman tells reporter Ira Glass that same-sex couples are not just as good as straight couples, but are "even better" when it comes to handling conflict. He notes that compared to 42 straight marriages of the same length and satisfaction), same-sex couples were better at "listening when criticized,... [being] less defensive,...[and being] more positive." He notes a conversation one gay-male couple had regarding sex initiation where one of the men told his partner that he didn't have the kind of body he was turned on by. The partner acknowledged that and then re-asked the original question. Dr. Gottman compares that to a male-female couple: how many wives would not become defensive and upset when told her husband didn't find her body attractive.
Dr. Gottman doesn't know why these same-sex couples did better. Possibly, he postulates, it's simply "easier for men to talk men" and likewise for women.
Also, interestingly, Dr. Gottman notes that it's impossible to find government funding for research on committed homosexual relationships or their sustainment without being very careful about the types of words used in a grant proposal. Certain watchdog organizations use computers to locate certain words like "gay", "lesbian", and "homosexual" to protest any government funding. As such, those proposal aren't even reviewed. This is "the kind of climate in which we're working" Dr. Gottman notes.
Unfortunately, it's not surprising that certain elements of our society,don't want gays to have successful relationships and that our government, rather than doing the right thing, bows to the pressure these zealots exert. It's also not surprising that almost no major press coverage has been given to Dr. Gottman's (admittably limited) results on same-sex relationships.
The general population, and I believe a good portion of the gay community, wants to buy into the stereotype and the hype: we can't have stable relationships. We seem desperately to need to believe the idea that we're so flawed that we can't commit to one another. This idea certainly allows those among us who are promiscuous and want nothing more out of life than meaningless sex and drugs to rationalize their irresponsible behavior.
We are no more flawed than any straight person. We are told we are flawed constantly; others would have us believe that something is wrong with us, but I believe that it is life with those messages that make us better in relationships. Perhaps we are more sensitive to our spouse's viewpoint because our own viewpoint is so often denigrated in society. We know what it's like to be told we are bad and wrong, so we are reluctant to automatically label another person as such. Conflicts then become less about "winning" (oppressing the other viewpoint or need) or villianizing our opposition, but about giving that person the understanding and opportunity to express his/her side that we so often wish others would give us.
The information I quote in this entry can be found beginning around the 25 minute mark. After this segment, the program tears into DOMA with a satirical eye and also seriously looks at the legal arguments being used against gay marriage. However, I recommend listening to the entirety of the excellent program.
Gottman and his team observe couples that have been asked to discuss a topic they disagree on (and according to Dr. Gottman's research and common sense, all couples disagree on something (and usually about certain key subjects)) and then study that interaction. While the couple discusses the issue, researchers categorize every level of interaction: from what is actually said to how it is said (not just the emotion behind it but the rate, tone, pitch, volume, etc. of speech) to facial expressions and body language to how couples respond to each other.
Gottman's research includes same-sex couples. Dr. Gottman's research sample of same-sex couples is very small (21 lesbian and 21 gay male couples )but has produced interesting results. If the results are representative, straights could be in real trouble.
Dr. Gottman tells reporter Ira Glass that same-sex couples are not just as good as straight couples, but are "even better" when it comes to handling conflict. He notes that compared to 42 straight marriages of the same length and satisfaction), same-sex couples were better at "listening when criticized,... [being] less defensive,...[and being] more positive." He notes a conversation one gay-male couple had regarding sex initiation where one of the men told his partner that he didn't have the kind of body he was turned on by. The partner acknowledged that and then re-asked the original question. Dr. Gottman compares that to a male-female couple: how many wives would not become defensive and upset when told her husband didn't find her body attractive.
Dr. Gottman doesn't know why these same-sex couples did better. Possibly, he postulates, it's simply "easier for men to talk men" and likewise for women.
Also, interestingly, Dr. Gottman notes that it's impossible to find government funding for research on committed homosexual relationships or their sustainment without being very careful about the types of words used in a grant proposal. Certain watchdog organizations use computers to locate certain words like "gay", "lesbian", and "homosexual" to protest any government funding. As such, those proposal aren't even reviewed. This is "the kind of climate in which we're working" Dr. Gottman notes.
Unfortunately, it's not surprising that certain elements of our society,don't want gays to have successful relationships and that our government, rather than doing the right thing, bows to the pressure these zealots exert. It's also not surprising that almost no major press coverage has been given to Dr. Gottman's (admittably limited) results on same-sex relationships.
The general population, and I believe a good portion of the gay community, wants to buy into the stereotype and the hype: we can't have stable relationships. We seem desperately to need to believe the idea that we're so flawed that we can't commit to one another. This idea certainly allows those among us who are promiscuous and want nothing more out of life than meaningless sex and drugs to rationalize their irresponsible behavior.
We are no more flawed than any straight person. We are told we are flawed constantly; others would have us believe that something is wrong with us, but I believe that it is life with those messages that make us better in relationships. Perhaps we are more sensitive to our spouse's viewpoint because our own viewpoint is so often denigrated in society. We know what it's like to be told we are bad and wrong, so we are reluctant to automatically label another person as such. Conflicts then become less about "winning" (oppressing the other viewpoint or need) or villianizing our opposition, but about giving that person the understanding and opportunity to express his/her side that we so often wish others would give us.
The information I quote in this entry can be found beginning around the 25 minute mark. After this segment, the program tears into DOMA with a satirical eye and also seriously looks at the legal arguments being used against gay marriage. However, I recommend listening to the entirety of the excellent program.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Planet Out-of-Line
DJ,
Thanks for the encouraging words. Funny you should mention the Pope as subject matter, since that's exactly the topic that was on my mind currently.
For the record, I was raised and still consider myself to be Southern Baptist as far as a religious denomination goes; my partner is Catholic. Neither of us are huge fans of Pope John Paul II, particularly in regard to his rigid stance on issues surrounding gays in the church.
The Pope could easily be called neglectful towards gay Catholics. He very easily could have made the distinction that he feels that homosexuality is non-Biblical, but that gays should be welcome in the Church with love and not denied communion or any other service, ministry, or rite of the church. He didn't take the opportunity to bring his people together in love in harmony despite his Biblical interpretation. He may have gone further by taking actions that allowed gays to be villianized and ostracized.
It's hard to understand how a man who was subject to oppression from Nazis and Communists could fail to see the evils of perpetuating oppression upon any other group. Still, he likely took the stances he did out of a sense of what he thought was truly right; unlike many leaders of the religious right, John Paul II probably acted, for right or wrong, good or evil, with the best of intentions with no ambition of bringing in more money, gaining political advantage, or solidifying a power base. This does not excuse his failure, but it does contextualize it.
On April 1st, PlanetOut, a leading gay website, sent out its regularly scheduled article updates on email. The subject line was "The Pope's Legacy of Homophobia."
Ironically, a "Social Grace" column, PlanetOut's answer to Miss Manners is also listed in this update. PlanetOut could have taken some lessons in manners; rather than sending this exceptionally insulting, insensitive, tasteless email. At the time that the email was sent, the Pope was clearly in the last stages of his life, on the verge of death.
He did then, and does now, as he rests in repose, deserve a show of respect. For his faults and failures in this area, the man did much good in his life. Regardless, he, like any other human being, deserves respect in death. The man man have committed evil to his gay members, but attacking the Pope does an evil to gay Catholics as well. It is hard to explain the connection I have seen between my partner and other Catholics with the Pope, but it is very tangible and important to them. Attacking the Pope is an indirect attack upon Catholics; it causes harm to an already harmed population.
There will be ample time to discuss his failures and lack of love and attention to his gay congregation. But, for now, we should let him rest in peace. He deserves the respect that any human, full of flaws and foilbles, but also capable of great love and compassion, deserves. This does not excuse him, but rathers shows ourselves to be something other than the evil he may have believed us to be.
Thanks for the encouraging words. Funny you should mention the Pope as subject matter, since that's exactly the topic that was on my mind currently.
For the record, I was raised and still consider myself to be Southern Baptist as far as a religious denomination goes; my partner is Catholic. Neither of us are huge fans of Pope John Paul II, particularly in regard to his rigid stance on issues surrounding gays in the church.
The Pope could easily be called neglectful towards gay Catholics. He very easily could have made the distinction that he feels that homosexuality is non-Biblical, but that gays should be welcome in the Church with love and not denied communion or any other service, ministry, or rite of the church. He didn't take the opportunity to bring his people together in love in harmony despite his Biblical interpretation. He may have gone further by taking actions that allowed gays to be villianized and ostracized.
It's hard to understand how a man who was subject to oppression from Nazis and Communists could fail to see the evils of perpetuating oppression upon any other group. Still, he likely took the stances he did out of a sense of what he thought was truly right; unlike many leaders of the religious right, John Paul II probably acted, for right or wrong, good or evil, with the best of intentions with no ambition of bringing in more money, gaining political advantage, or solidifying a power base. This does not excuse his failure, but it does contextualize it.
On April 1st, PlanetOut, a leading gay website, sent out its regularly scheduled article updates on email. The subject line was "The Pope's Legacy of Homophobia."
Ironically, a "Social Grace" column, PlanetOut's answer to Miss Manners is also listed in this update. PlanetOut could have taken some lessons in manners; rather than sending this exceptionally insulting, insensitive, tasteless email. At the time that the email was sent, the Pope was clearly in the last stages of his life, on the verge of death.
He did then, and does now, as he rests in repose, deserve a show of respect. For his faults and failures in this area, the man did much good in his life. Regardless, he, like any other human being, deserves respect in death. The man man have committed evil to his gay members, but attacking the Pope does an evil to gay Catholics as well. It is hard to explain the connection I have seen between my partner and other Catholics with the Pope, but it is very tangible and important to them. Attacking the Pope is an indirect attack upon Catholics; it causes harm to an already harmed population.
There will be ample time to discuss his failures and lack of love and attention to his gay congregation. But, for now, we should let him rest in peace. He deserves the respect that any human, full of flaws and foilbles, but also capable of great love and compassion, deserves. This does not excuse him, but rathers shows ourselves to be something other than the evil he may have believed us to be.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Been a Long Time Blogging
Hi, I haven't gone away; I'm still here.
I haven't entered in quite some time because I've found it difficult to get wound up about anything in particular because it all seems to be the same old stuff over and over again, sometimes repackaged and recycled.
Gays and lesbians continued to be hammered by state consitutional amendments and the religious right. Bush continues to blatantly lie to the public and get away with it. We are still in Iraq and will probably be in Iran before Bush is out of office. The news media continues to focus on the banal and unimportant and so does Congress: steroids and Shiavo. Politics among gay organizations continue to hinder any real progress.
So, I've had very little to say that I thought was new or interesting. I could bitch and moan, but I've done a lot of that and didn't want to continue. Instead, I've had a lot of time focusing on doing instead of saying.
My work has been hectic as I spend enormous amounts of time developing a course sequence and sharpening my own skills and abilities as an instructor for freshmen interested in becoming leaders. Also, my volunteer work with our local "gay hotline", the Gay and Lesbian Switchboard of Charlotte has taken up my remaining free time as we both struggle to survive as well as make some impressive improvements and strides in service and outreach to callers and our volunteers.
Blogging would have felt like spinning my wheels. These activities make me feel like I'm actually accomplishing something. I have no idea who, if anybody, I'm reaching with my blog. Even my website, which used to bring me at least one email a month, has produced no contacts. So, time here feels far less productive than my other endeavors.
That said, I am not folding up shop. I actually have some thoughts and information to share. So, if you're out there, stick around. I'll be blogging around the mountain when I come.
I haven't entered in quite some time because I've found it difficult to get wound up about anything in particular because it all seems to be the same old stuff over and over again, sometimes repackaged and recycled.
Gays and lesbians continued to be hammered by state consitutional amendments and the religious right. Bush continues to blatantly lie to the public and get away with it. We are still in Iraq and will probably be in Iran before Bush is out of office. The news media continues to focus on the banal and unimportant and so does Congress: steroids and Shiavo. Politics among gay organizations continue to hinder any real progress.
So, I've had very little to say that I thought was new or interesting. I could bitch and moan, but I've done a lot of that and didn't want to continue. Instead, I've had a lot of time focusing on doing instead of saying.
My work has been hectic as I spend enormous amounts of time developing a course sequence and sharpening my own skills and abilities as an instructor for freshmen interested in becoming leaders. Also, my volunteer work with our local "gay hotline", the Gay and Lesbian Switchboard of Charlotte has taken up my remaining free time as we both struggle to survive as well as make some impressive improvements and strides in service and outreach to callers and our volunteers.
Blogging would have felt like spinning my wheels. These activities make me feel like I'm actually accomplishing something. I have no idea who, if anybody, I'm reaching with my blog. Even my website, which used to bring me at least one email a month, has produced no contacts. So, time here feels far less productive than my other endeavors.
That said, I am not folding up shop. I actually have some thoughts and information to share. So, if you're out there, stick around. I'll be blogging around the mountain when I come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)