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.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)