News and Stuff
Thursday, October 15th, 2009It’s been a while since I did a news roundup, but here are a few things catching my attention this week.
LDS leader Elder Dallin Oaks compared backlash against Mormon anti-queer politicking in California to the intimidation Blacks faced from anti-integration forces in the civil rights era. Ironically, he said this 11 years and one day after a young gay man died from being beaten, robbed, pistol-whipped and left exposed and tied to a fence to die by two young men, one of whom was Mormon. Two points: it is illegal under federal law to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion, while it remains, to this day, perfectly legal under federal law to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; also, for comparing Mormons to those who fought against racism in the civil rights era, fuck off you muthafucking fucker.
Because you’re not going to click on that second link, it’s a Time article from 1959. Many attitudes (and public statements) have changed, sure, but I heard these same ideas when I was still in the Church some twenty-ish years ago:
Whatever they may do or leave undone about their Negro brethren, most U.S. churches hold that all men are equal before God. One notable exception: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches that the colored races are descendants of the evil children of Laman and Lemuel, who impiously warred against the good children of Nephi and received their pigmented skin as punishment. …. “The Mormon interpretation of the curse of Canaan … together with unauthorized, but widely accepted statements by [Mormon] leaders in years past, has led to the view among many Mormon adherents that birth into any race other than white is a result of inferior performance in pre-earth life, and that by righteous living dark-skinned races may again become ‘white and delightsome.’”
The video of the brutal gay bashing in Queens is heartbreaking. I feel like people (read: Elder Oaks) should watch it even if it’s uncomfortable.
Yes, Joe Solmonese should resign. Not just because of his criticized “give Obama a pass until 2017″ email, nor because of his offensive depiction of HRC donors as “more politically aware” (than, say, the numerous conscientious objectors to HRC fundraising galas who actually run grassroots efforts?), nor because he had the audacity to claim the HRC speaks for LGBT people after he specifically broke at least one promise to the transgender community regarding ENDA. No, he should resign because after 4 1/2 years in his position the closest thing to a real federal accomplishment from the HRC is maybe, maybe a watered-down, long overdue piece of hate crime legislation smuggled into a “must pass” spending measure.
There are those who think the intra-community divide (or at least the attention being paid to it) is damaging the movement. I disagree. But I’ve made my boring argument before about how a noncohesive and diverse community movement is better politics for both internal and external reasons. It boils down to my fundamental belief that until the sissy boy prancing fairy genderqueer teenager in a tutu is fully protected, accepted and celebrated by society, we haven’t achieved lasting and reliable equality. And we don’t get there with field-tested, heteronormative, corporate-backed, risk-averse, middle-class white male issue focus or message crafting.
Switching gears…
I heard from my mom that two people I grew up with passed away. Pete (above, waving) was one of my earliest friends, although we didn’t always get along. Denise was a long-time neighbor. I haven’t even thought of either of them in ages. Weird.
Got my ticket home for the Holiday today. I’m very much looking forward to seeing the kids again. Craig and Callie are getting so big in their photos and Owen Ace looks adorable these days. Coming soon: Halloween costumes!
![Mr. & Mrs. Smith (SMASH Cast Version) [feat. Megan Hilty & Will Chase] - Single](http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/34s/74615246.jpg)
![I Never Met a Wolf Who Didn't Love to Howl (SMASH Cast Version) [feat. Megan Hilty] - Single](http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/34s/75191908.jpg)
I’m sorry for your loss. But what a cute bundle of bAbY mAnIa you got there!
What an outrageous statement from Oaks. It’s very sad that things haven’t changed much since 1959. Despite the divide between the HRC and grassroots movement, I hope the message will be heard. Change comes about so damn slowly in the U.S.
Clicked and read all the links (because you said I wouldn’t : ).
Sorry to hear about your friend and neighbor.
And thanks for posting the very adorable pic of Owen. I hope he will grow up in a more enlightened time.
Great post! I wrote you this long-ass reply because I’m a dork and it’s really slow at work today.
—
As for the intra-community divide, well. As much as I wish I wasn’t saying this, the white picket fencers really are helping the most. When the mundanes have an experience like ‘Oh, the gays want the same things we do, and they live the same way we do,’ it really does advance the movement. I’ve seen it with my very own eyes.
Having a stable, normal, non-swinging, car-driving, pants-wearing gay couple in the neighborhood makes gays more accessible. Gays quit being ‘them’ and start being ‘us.’ Similarity makes community.
People use their votes to protect members of their community.
—
As for sissy boy prancing fairy genderqueer teenager in a tutu being “protected, accepted and celebrated” by society, I wanna play devil’s advocate for a minute.
Protection is one thing, and it absolutely should be universal. But isn’t acceptance and celebration a bit much to ask for? What is it, exactly, that you want to have celebrated? The fact that tutu boy is gay, or the fact that s/he’s high maintenance and exhausting?
If being gay isn’t a mental health condition, and I don’t believe that it is, then why am I expected to take special care of sissy boy prancing fairy genderqueer? I love cock just as much as he does, but no one ever cut me any slack because of it.
A straight girl who behaved like that would have eyes rolled at her too. She might end up just as damaged, hurt, marginalized, and addicted. It’s not the sexual orientation, it’s the underlying craziness that’s the issue1.
—
Pride coverage, for another example, often causes the rift to widen because the majority of straight viewers can’t relate to what they’re seeing. They don’t understand Pride because there is no Halloween parade for heterosexuality.
Pride, the most famous and most media-covered gay event in each community each year, is patently not “a bunch of people just like us” who happen to be gay. It is, as you know, actually a bunch of pretty kinky shit.
Accepting Pride isn’t about accepting homosexuality; it’s about accepting gay sexual behaviors that are by their very nature forever going to be foreign to straights.
/beating_dead_horse
—
I love my gay neighbors. Not because they’re gay, I don’t even care that they’re gay, I love them because they’re good neighbors and their really nice lawn ups the property values.
I love my local sissy boy prancing fairy genderqueer teenager in a tutu, too, but I would be lying if I didn’t admit that I can’t wait for him to grow the fuck up already and quit shrieking because I’m too old for that shit.
—
Everyone should be accepted, but I would argue that celebration should be earned.
Gay folk should absolutely have marriage/domestic partnership rights, and should never be in mortal danger because of their lovin’, but it’s absurd to hope that the great unwashed heteronormative masses will celebrate gay sexuality for its own sake. It’s sex! It doesn’t mean anything! There’s nothing to celebrate because sex isn’t identity.
—
How to be celebrated:
Be a valuable, contributing member of your community. Keep your clothes on. Hide your dildos just like everyone else. Rinse and repeat.
—
What makes the gay acceptance battle hard to win is that it’s not orientation the mundanes perceive themselves as being asked to accept and celebrate, it’s culture. And people who are not a member of a culture cannot reasonably be asked to celebrate it. For example, while I certainly accept and respect Jewish culture, I don’t “celebrate” it because I’m not Jewish.
Diversity within the movement is good, and for the reasons you mention, but I don’t think that “field-tested, heteronormative, corporate-backed, risk-averse, middle-class white male issue focus or message crafting” is useless in the pursuit of the goal. The gay guys up the street with the basically-heteronormative-except-for-the-missing-vagina are making massive inroads towards getting capital-T-Them to grok that it’s ignorant to beat up boys wearing tutus because they’re gay.
Beat them up because they’re high maintenance, by all means, but not because they’re gay.
—
Finally, and almost unrelatedly, where did we ever even get the idea that any group of people must needs be internally coherent? It seems to me to be a patently false idea, but people keep insisting that that’s how things ought to be. WTF, over?
—
Okay, so that’s way too long for a comment. *shrug*
1 I’m not saying that genderqueer is always crazy, but it often is. A lot of shit that people want equal time and acceptance for just isn’t valid. I don’t know where the line is, no, but I do know bullshit when I see it.
A lot of the time, orientation is irrelevant in the face of a whole host of other far more pressing social and psychological issues, but the person in question chooses to hide behind the queer shield so they can’t be reached or asked to do the necessary work. Why choose growth and change when you can just complain and be a victim?
Jere Keys Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Wow. I wish I had time to give this a full response. *glares at stupid law school homework*
A couple quick points: your assertion that assimilationist tactics are more effective may be backed by anecdotal evidence, but there’s insufficient research as yet to the empirical reality. I have a notion that if we follow that strategy to the logical end, we only succeed in queer equality in the way we’ve succeeded in racial equality or gender equality today. Sure, there are members of the group who can and do mimic the traits of the dominant culture to sufficiently blend and gain a sort of condescending “tolerance,” even a few who buck the assimilation and thrive anyway, but we’ve left so much work on the systemic issues to future generations. It remains somehow a negative to “act gay” or “act Black” or “act emotional [code for feminine]" or whatever.
You ask "isn’t acceptance and celebration a bit much to ask for?" and I respond, "No." In fact, acceptance (and it's less appealing cousin "tolerance") is the very least we should be demanding. Now, if you asked me whether I think we'll ever reach the day when the world celebrates the differences, the uniqueness and the individuality of all the colors in the homo rainbow, I might have to admit that I'm a little pessimistic on that front. Nevertheless, it's my goal. It's the end I want to work toward. Why set the bar too low to begin with? You write: "For example, while I certainly accept and respect Jewish culture, I don't 'celebrate' it because I'm not Jewish." Language is our enemy, here. I'm not necessarily asking straight people to literally celebrate gay pride weekend and Harvey Milk Day. But take your "respecting" and add an element of "welcoming" or "hoping/wanting to include" (as opposed to the "putting up with" connotation to the word accept) and you approach what I mean when I shorthand it as "celebrate."
Third, as a strategy, I'm not sure I give a flying fuck about whether people will use their votes to protect me. We didn't end school segregation by a popular vote. We didn't crack down on workplace sexual harassment or protect a woman's right to reproductive choice through field tested public referendums. While public sentiment and mores are a necessary background to any social movement, at some point we rely on leaders and the strength of The State make a leap of faith and declare that it's time for the entrenched attitudes and prejudices of past generations to be ended, even at some considerable risk.
Finally, where I catch in your argument an element of the idea that we should separate sexuality from sexual orientation, I disagree. I could go into my whole spiel about sex-positive argumentation and role-modeling, but I really do need to go read about landlord-tenant conflicts and/or injunction relief in contract suits.
goblinbox Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
**It remains somehow a negative to “act gay” or “act Black” or “act emotional [code for feminine]" or whatever.**
In certain settings, yes. If a member of culture A is hanging out in culture B, the culture B folks just aren't gonna get the culture A person's jokes. Doesn't mean they're stupid, doesn't mean they're assholes. Just means they aren't socialized the same way. No harm, no foul.
Also, is there something wrong with acting Roman in Rome? I'd say it shows respect.
Also also, it bugs the shit out of me when, for example, women "act emotional" when they're doing it to be manipulative. They do it to me all day long on the phone. They do it because they don't want to face whatever challenge they're facing; because they want someone more butch than them to do it for them. (I do network tech support, and I have women who won't answer the simplest questions about their gear because "it's men's stuff" and they're "not smart enough" to do it. Bullshit, they're plenty smart and they know it. They just don't want to do it. So they pull the emotional/stupid woman card. On other women, even. That's how pervasive the concept is.)
Ditto friends "acting black" or "acting gay" to avoid having to face up to something they don't feel like dealing with. There's nothing inherently wrong with emotionality, blackness, or gayness, and I think you're only going to find morons who don't agree with that statement (and gods know you can't fix stupid), but there most emphatically is something wrong with a posture of "I'm seriously too stupid, weak, and vapid to have to deal with any of this! I'll just flutter and it'll go away... or better yet, someone else will deal with it for me."
**Why set the bar too low to begin with?**
Excellent point!
**But take your "respecting" and add an element of "welcoming" or "hoping/wanting to include" (as opposed to the "putting up with" connotation to the word accept) and you approach what I mean when I shorthand it as "celebrate."**
Okay. You mean "accept." (I know, I know, semantics. I find that don't have the same grudging tinge to the word "accept" in my head, but I totally grok you here.)
**I could go into my whole spiel about sex-positive argumentation and role-modeling, but I really do need to go read about landlord-tenant conflicts and/or injunction relief in contract suits.**
Oh fine, I see how you are. The old "I've got homework" ploy.
(Maybe write a post on the topic at some point? I'd love to read it! I find in my old age that I do not think the same way about sexual expression that I used to. Sure it's fun, but it ain't all that. Does it need to be so... everywhere? Really? Why? What does it do that can't be done better other ways? I periodically feel that over-focusing on sexuality becomes, well, animalistic. People are capable of so much more than rutting... On the other hand, there's your cast-in-stone sex roles that patently have, I've come to realize, done me a disservice and about which I'm pissed. My expectations of masculine and feminine roles in particular caused me to behave in ways that didn't help me get where I wanted to be... Okay, okay, your blog is cool but I should really be auditing closed accounts. Late!)
*wanders off*
Oh, I forgot:
Mormons believe in reincarnation?! What’s this “birth into” and “pre-earth life” shiznit? What?
Jere Keys Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Mormons do not believe in reincarnation. At least, not in the Eastern religions sense. There is, however, a rather convoluted and lengthy discussion of the eternal plan (of which Earth lives are a brief but pivotal element).