My Three Dollars Worth

Police Violence: A Link Archive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:53:00 +0000

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6051043/how-many-people-killed-police-statistics-homicide-official-black

http://www.bustle.com/articles/36096-do-police-shoot-black-men-more-often-statistics-say-yes-absolutely

http://rt.com/usa/180648-police-shootings-african-american/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/08/23/fact-checker-police-brutality-toward-blacks-rare/14424297/

http://www.colorlines.com/archives/2007/11/killed_by_the_cops.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

On Michael Brown and Addressing Anti-Black Violence

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:56:00 +0000

Some excellent pieces on Michael Brown and the killing of Black people in America:

America is not for Black people (Greg Howard, the Concourse)

Black kids don't have to be college bound for their deaths to be tragic (Jasmine Banks, The Root)

In defense of Black rage (Brittney Cooper, Salon)

I have zero answers here, but I've been thinking about what the structures are that enable violence, especially state-sanctioned and white violence, against Black people, queer people, Black queer people, and other people of color of various sexualities and genders to occur without repercussion (often--thankfully Renisha McBride seems to be an exception to this rule) and with impunity.

As Mia Mckenzie (Black Girl Dangerous) points out in her latest piece, "In this country, police protect property while killing human beings. Sometimes they, as well as civilians, kill human beings in order to protect property." This one thought brings together the interlaced nature of white supremacy with corporate power. In our current oligarchy (to paraphrase Chomsky: "There is one party; the business party.") And corporate power almost uniformly is held by white people (usually white men). These men usually present as straight and/or gender conforming (i.e., cisgender) but who knows? The take-away here is not whether they are or not, but rather they present as such, likely to retain their power and privilege in way that would be compromised (although perhaps not depleted) if they weren't. For the record, I have no illusions that a gay white corporate power broker would be more just, less racist, or more equitable than a straight one, as illustrated by the numerous times non-powerful gay white men articulate and act on their white privileged worldview.

In our increasing carceral society (Foucault was right!) police power and the prison industry is tied to corporate interest and money. I don't know if white supremacy is able to be defeated or even mitigated without de-powering corporations and the police. I of course still believe in education and I think us white educators need to teach not just the evils of racism (i.e., don't be racist because racism is violence), but the harmful effects on all people (i.e., don't support racist policies and tactics because they're violence and they are also bad for you).

This is a small chip, and it might be my (or anyone's) primary chip, but I think it's going to take a long fight against the increasing state/police power our government at multiple levels is exerting against all its citizens, corporate influence on our political processes, and corporate ties with police and prisons. (In addition to the increased militarization of police as demonstrated in this article and others, I'm seeing more stories on police serving/protecting the citizens who can afford them. A recent news story from a nearby town detailed a woman was charged a fee because she called police to investigate a situation at her house!)

TL;DR: Anti-black / anti-POC violence by police and white people is supported through corporate-government-police ties and it seems to me those ties must be dismantled or damaged. How to do that however? That, I have no idea. I'm just sharing my latest thinking out loud. Violence and state violence in this country against Black and queer people has always existed. Black people and their allies helped address some of it, but it seems to be gaining strength as white corporate interests continue to increase their power.

Gay White Men and Black Women: A Link Archive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:41:00 +0000

http://time.com/2969951/dear-white-gays-stop-stealing-black-female-culture/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-michael-dagostino/bye-sierra-mannie-a-slightly-ang_b_5588108.html

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/why-white-gays-steal-black-female-culture.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antwaun-sargent/a-history-of-throwing-cultural-appropriation_b_5586481.html

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/17/332283239/are-white-gay-men-stealing-culture-from-black-women

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/11/are_gay_white_men_really_stealing_black_female_culture.html

http://www.xojane.com/issues/white-gay-men-cultural-appropriation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/gay-men-black-women_n_5591565.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://time.com/2988033/white-gays-black-women-allies/

http://www.autostraddle.com/white-gay-man-publishes-epically-stupid-response-to-stop-stealing-black-female-culture-245972/

http://thoughtcatalog.com/h-alan-scott/2014/07/dear-white-gays-dont-listen-to-time-magazine/

Fat and Health: A Link Archive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:30:00 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/our-imaginary-weight-problem.html

http://mic.com/articles/91407/9-facts-that-challenge-the-way-we-talk-about-fat-people?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/05/can-you-be-fat-and-fit-or-thin-and-unhealthy/

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/01/if_fat_is_unhealthy_why_are_overweight_people_less_likely_to_die.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/overweight-bit-obese-bad/story?id=18108820

http://kateharding.net/faq/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/

http://greatist.com/health/why-it-okay-to-be-overweight

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/04/just-the-fat-facts-maam/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2539857/Obese-people-not-always-unhealthy.html

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2009/11/03/there-is-strong-research-showing-fat-people-can-be-healthy-and-fit/

Trigger Warning: A Link Archive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:10:00 +0000

"Christina Hanhardt's work on the concept of queer "safe spaces" - and the historical and political contours that define those as such - is worth looking at as well. What I find especially interesting about Ashon's work, and in juxtaposing that with Christina's, is how we're challenged to think about the basic questions: Who gets triggered? Who gets protected? And from what? How are triggering and protection raced, gendered, and classed? How does that work in a uni setting? In organising spaces (where it has, in my experience, often made it impossible to actually move forward in organising work)? There's a willingness to insist that TWs somehow protect people, but the larger question is: what are the political costs of that protection? What does "protection" really mean?" - Yasmir Nair, Facebook, June 24, 2014

http://thegeekypress.com/2014/05/29/on-why-trigger-warnings-are-a-bad-idea/

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/05/23/treatment-not-trigger-warnings/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/05/29/essay-faculty-members-about-why-they-will-not-use-trigger-warnings#sthash.7YFC3mNX.I4rXZB61.dpbs

https://storify.com/ashoncrawley/on-trigger-warnings

http://entropymag.org/on-trigger-warnings-part-i-in-the-creative-writing-classroom/
http://entropymag.org/on-trigger-warnings-part-ii-generational-tensions/
http://entropymag.org/on-trigger-warnings-part-iii-disability-and-accommodation/

http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/

response to Halberstam: http://queerandpresentdanger.tumblr.com/post/91296439324

http://raneutill.com/how-trigger-warnings-broke-my-back/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/trigger-warning-stigma/?utm_content=buffer6fb51&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The History of and Debate Over "Tranny": A Link Archive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:10:00 +0000

http://www.transadvocate.com/tranny-an-evidence-based-review-2_n_13593.htm

http://veronicavera.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/miss-vera-on-tranny/

http://katebornstein.typepad.com/kate_bornsteins_blog/2009/07/who-you-calling-a-tranny.html

http://katebornstein.typepad.com/kate_bornsteins_blog/2014/05/tranny-revisited-by-auntie-kate.html

http://thefightmag.com/2014/05/performance-artist-justin-bond-fires-back-after-trannyshack-name-change/

http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/

response to Halberstam: http://queerandpresentdanger.tumblr.com/post/91296439324

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/09/is_tranny_offensive.php

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/12/context_lets_talk_about_tranny.php

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/trans-community-debates-middle-ground/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malek-mouzon/i-guess-i-should-stop-letting-people-call-me-tranny_b_5147564.html

http://zinnia.sexy/post/86765895585/why-cant-bailey-jay-just-have-her-feelings-about

http://chamblee54.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/wtf-rupaul/

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2014/05/rupaul-still-clueless-as-usual.html

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/logo-tv-distances-itself-from-rupal

http://prospect.org/article/word-faggot

Miley, Madonna, Big Freedia, and Willi Ninja

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:37:00 +0000

In just a matter of hours, I've seen more coverage and discussion of Miley Cyrus's VMA performance than I've ever noticed before. The coverage generally seems to stem from peoples' deep discomfort with Cyrus's sexually provocative moves. I haven't watched her performance and I don't care to, although I've seen stills from it; most of them fixate on her twerking and simulated rear penetration. I have seen her rather disjointed and controversial ode to young adult (women's?) rebellion. I don't consider Cyrus particularly interesting or talented, but the attention she draws merits interest. Such attention, while clearly fed and furthered by media outlets who seek page views (i.e., ad revenue) and to line the pockets of the producers of Cyrus's videos and performances, calls attention to American society's need to continue to surveil and police women's bodies and sexuality. Regardless of the questionable aesthetic merits of Cyrus's VMA performance, video, or dancing, Cyrus is able to draw attention because she's clearly aware that women acting in highly sexual ways in public draws attention and controversy. Cyrus is no fool or dupe here; she's following in a financially proven tradition, whose more modern originators include Madonna, Cher, Janis Joplin, and others, although they did this, many would likely argue, in more daring, original, and aesthetically complex ways. (I omit women of color in these originators not to exclude them, but to highlight the tradition of white women Cyrus follows in, an important distinction.)

Clinton Yates at the Washington Post rightly calls out the pathologizing of Cyrus's overt sexuality as slut-shaming, or, in more academic terms, the social regulation of women's bodies. But then Yates goes off track, majorly. Yates want to make Cyrus a victim of racism because of her class status and Whiteness. Yates writes:

When the white, 20-year-old, former child star and daughter of a country singer goes on stage and does something that the so-called ruling classes deem unseemly, it starts a firestorm. ... By implying that Cyrus is somehow creating a minstrel act of sorts by including black dancers in her act, you are implying that there is something lesser than about such an act. As if it’s completely impossible that she simply enjoys and respects the talents of those she chooses to work with. In short, it is inherently racist to imply that there is anything wrong with anyone other than black women twerking.

Yates specifically refers to the Vulture piece on Cyrus, but would clearly also apply his thinking to this HuffPo piece. Yates's rightful assertion that Miley draws controversy because she is a White woman of a certain age and socio-economic class contorts what racism is and how it functions. Institutional and social racism demands that White women, particularly middle to upper class White women, act or be represented as virginal, pure, and innocent, but it makes those demands so that Black women can be portrayed as sexual beasts, uncontrollable in their desires. This is Patricia Hill Collins 101.

So, yes, racism, or more specifically institutional racism, makes certain demands on Cyrus's body, as does heteropatriarchy, but obviously she still benefits, at least financially, from those demands. She seems, in fact, to exploit the system for her own gain, her own attention. Black women are rarely rewarded, like Cyrus and other white women are, for performing in ways that verify or defy social images of them. Yates confuses personal racism with institutional racism, and doesn't understand either. Even within the realm of personal racism, Yates cannot possibly know the motives or thoughts of those who accuse Cyrus of racial appropriation, and doesn't write as if he cares. He seems to be employing a rhetorical strategy to simply end the discussion: call it racist and no counter-argument can be mounted, right?

Yet it is perfectly legitimate, if not out-right correct, to say that Cyrus, and other white performers, when they twerk are appropriating a dance move that originated among African-American communities. White entertainers have been doing this for decades, if not centuries, in this country. Cyrus and Yates cannot ignore this historical context and claim that it's racist to limit certain dance moves to certain racial groups.

What Yates fails to understand is that it's less about a White person dancing in an African-American style than it's about a number of things: to what end does Cyrus use this style? Does she care about twerking as an art form or does she simply seek to profit off it? Is she using the Blackness of twerking to appear edgy, dangerous, "hard"? Is she extending a commensurate amount of compensation to those who taught her to twerk or to those who originated twerking? These are just a few relevant questions and considerations. And focusing solely on twerking does not take into account Cyrus's use of other emblems of African-American rap and hip-hop culture, such as hoodies, grills, and gangster signs, all of which suggest that Cyrus is using Blackness for profit by trying to counter her innocent, young Whiteness which she built a reputation and career on during her "Hannah Montana" days. In addition to Black cultural symbols, Cyrus also fetishizes Black bodies, particularly the asses, of her VMA dancers and her video collaborators. At one point in the video, she spanks a person who presents as a Black drag queen in a kitchen. One cannot ignore the racist symbolism of a rich, White, straight, cisgender woman "punishing" a queer Black body in a place where Black people historically served.

In twerking and her video, Cyrus appropriates both Blackness and queerness. Twerking [seizure warning for link] originated in the New Orleans-based, African American Bounce and Sissy Bounce music scene, [UPDATE 10/27/15: In a televised interview in the past year or two, Big Freedia clarified that Sissy Bounce is not a thing. The correct term is Bounce.] One of the leaders of whom is a genderqueer Black person--Big Freedia--who has received considerably less attention and money than certainly Cyrus does. Madonna did this with voguing, witch originated in the queer (predominantly) Black and Latino/Hispanic New York City Drag Ball culture. Yet, most people have never heard of Willi Ninja or other contemporaries, and those dance pioneers received considerably less (if any) remuneration for having their dance style stolen. Yates, and likely Cyrus, does not understand the history, (and I would be surprised if Cyrus cared so long as exploiting Blackness and queerness brings her plenty of attention and money) of this kind of institutional racism and heterosupremacy. Certainly Madonna wasn't the first and Cyrus isn't going to be the last White or straight and cisgender identified person to profit from the bodies and work of Black, Brown, and Queer people, but we must call them, and people like Yates, to recognition of these facts, and how the policing of Cyrus's body as a woman stems from these same systems of oppression.

An Open Letter to Anna Bross and Other News Editors

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:23:00 +0000

Today Anna Bross declared that NPR will not refer to Chelsea Manning as she/her, but will continue to use he/him despite Chelsea's express wishes. Of course, NPR isn't the only news outlet stigmatizing and refusing to honor Chelsea's wishes. Below is the letter I just emailed her. It applies to any news organization that refuses to recognize Manning's agency.

Ms. Bross,

As a long-time listener of NPR as a source of news with intelligence and depth, I am disgusted at your ignorance about transgender people and gender identity in general. Your choice to continue to refer to Chelsea Manning, despite her stated wishes, as he/him is a display of the worst kind of heteronormativity, cis-gender privilege, and systematic genderbashing. Do you understand those terms? If not, I suggest you do some research. Gender is not about genitalia, it's about how we understand ourselves. Some people, like myself, and likely yourself, understand our gender (male in my case, female in yours) as aligning with the sex were were assigned at birth. (You need to understand also how sex also is much less clear than what you likely believe.) Others understand their gender differently from their assigned sex. Chelsea Manning has stated that she is one of those people.

Your insistence on continuing to use male pronouns for Chelsea, or anybody, who states a preference to be referred to otherwise (such as she/her, or perhaps ze/hir) needs to be honored. Why do you feel like you have the authority or right to police and decide for Chelsea, or anybody, their gender? Why do you think it's ethically sound to decide what Manning's sex is? Are you a genitalia expert? Have you seen Manning's genitalia? Do you know whether Manning has a penis or just an enlarged clitoris? Do you know Manning's chromosomes? If not, I'd strongly urge you to let Chelsea decide what is proper to call her. Even if you knew all of this information, you do not have the right to police other people's decisions about how they wish to be known.

Would you object if, although you seem to present and identify as a woman, as female, news outlets, friends, family, the public, decided to call you a man and refer to you as he/him? I suspect you'd object strongly to this because you see yourself as a woman. So does Chelsea. It doesn't matter who you think she is. I expect better from NPR and its staff: I expect you not to promote systematic discrimination. Your actions today have done this.

I have donated to NPR in the past, but I will no longer do so unless you reconsider this decision. I'm sure my donation is a small sum compared to your corporate partners, but it's what I can do other than urge you to consider how you are harming the life of not just Chelsea Manning, but effectively declaring that no trans person has the right to declare their own personhood and terms of engagement with others.

I urge you to rethink your position.

Perspectives on Obama's Morehouse Address

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:05:00 +0000

James Fallows points, probably rightly so, to the impossible predicament that President Obama (and First Lady Michelle Obama by implication) find themselves in when addressing issues of race and/or about lesbians and gays, as exemplified by the reaction to the President's commencement address to historically Black men's university, Morehouse. The historical significance of the President's mere presence (i.e., the first Black president addressing the graduating class of one of the preeminent colleges for Black men) and the content of his address as well. In particular, two aspects of his speech have gained prominent attention: his admonition that these young Black men need to not blame racism for their failings and to press on, and his mention that Black men should be good husbands, or partners, opening up space for the recognition of the gay men / same-gender loving (SGL) men. (Some Black men find gay to be racially marked as White, and choose other identity designations, such as SGL).

The President's rhetoric certainly merits the attention many commentators have paid to it (with the exception of the racist and ludicrous writings of certain right-wing pundits). Ta-Nehisi Coates and Tim Wise, whose arguments I find persuasive, take the President to task for his "bootstrap" message. While the President addresses the continuing presence of racism and discrimination, he asserts that nobody cares, previous generations had it worse, and these graduates should stop making excuses. James Braxton Peterson provides a balanced summation of the critiques and accolades of this (and Michelle Obama's) address, concluding: "a longer, more sustained dialogue between the Obamas and black America is a few years overdue."

Jafari Allen maintains that the President's invocation of gayness in the address is far more important and historic, yet has been drowned out in the wake of his racial message. Allen, who taught the first LGBTQ class at Morehouse and who is also an alumnus, calls the President's acknowledgment of same-sex relationships "profoundly significant, especially at this time, and in that setting, where, until recently, we had remained unacknowledged from pulpits of power." I strongly recommend reading his article for its perspective on the importance of this utterance and Allen's own experiences teaching the course.

Yet the utterance "partner to your boyfriend" is contextualized within a heteronormative framework of traditional marriage, children, and family. It is embedded within stories of heterosexual reproduction and hegemonic ideals of masculinity and maleness. Being a good gay then means being a traditional, strong, responsible man. Additionally, on the Facebook page of Queerocracy, "a non-normative grassroots organization," one member posted an interesting insight:

I like that he [Obama] did this, but a lot of the rhetoric he used--at least what is quoted--still suggests that queer and Black are mutually exclusive identities. Despite advocating that the graduates be the best husband to their wives, boyfriends or partners he continues by comparing the struggles of Black people to those of other minority groups, one of them being queer people. I also think it's interesting that The Huffington Post chose to put this in their Gay Voices section when Black Voices would have been just as appropriate, if not more so. I do appreciate that he did this, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that in attempting to be inclusive, their rhetoric can sometimes do the opposite.

I find this perspective compelling in its call for us all to consider intersections of identities and how we often, even or especially benignly, fail in this. It also shows the failing of modern gay liberation discourse, in which the President's words are firmly ensconced, to represent a gayness that is not White (or classed, or gendered).

I'm left, in the final analysis, wanting to acknowledge the contribution the President's mentioning of men having boyfriends as a meaningful event for many Morehouse (and perhaps other HBCU) men. Morehouse has certainly not been particularly friendly to queer students, and perhaps this will help continue opening up space for gay/SGL and even trans or gender non-conforming men at Morehouse and other HBCUs. But of course, in addition to positing Black vs. gay, there's no acknowledgment of genderqueer or trans people; men is not used to mean a range of bodies and identities. I don't really at this point expect more from this president. And perhaps Peterson is right that "maybe a commencement address is not the best place to hash out political inadequacies." Obama's deployment of modern gay political language is, without doubt, significant in any context and the most inclusive of any sitting president. I find more problematic his admonitions to Black men which seem lacking in critical clarity at the very least. But again, I remain disturbed with another invocation of the gay and lesbian politics that dominates American society and that cannot envision a good gay or lesbian who does not uphold neoliberal and heteronormative ideals of citizenship, gender, and family.

The Need to Be Super: Queers in comics, Zizek, and the Petition to Fire Orson Scott Card

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:07:00 +0000

All Out has started a petition to have DC comics to drop Orson Scott Card from writing one of their new digital Superman titles. Apparently it's a couple of issues and not the entire series, although the petition implies otherwise. Card, most famous for his science fiction novel Ender's Game, is notoriously anti-gay, has written about it prominently, and has ties to the National Organization for Marriage, a anti-same-sex marriage political organization. He is, to be fair, a class-A straight and cisgender supremist who has advocated the overthrow of the government if same-sex marriage becomes legal.

The comments on the petition are strident and strongly worded:

You hire him, you've lost an avid fan of your company and I will never buy any of your products again. I will actually go out of my way to ensure no one buys your products. Ever!

Don't take us back to the 1950's! Get rid of this guy!

The petition itself states:

By hiring Orson Scott Card despite his anti-gay efforts you are giving him a new platform and supporting his hate.

This matter has risen to the attention of even the Guardian, and I want to know why. I'm curious about the investment people--the large portion of which I'm confident do not read comics regularly--have in this matter? Why has this particular instance so captivated peoples' attention when far worse is done against LGBT people and far worse has been done to LGBT characters in comics?

First, why the focus on a medium that, while it's characters are gaining in popularity thanks to some entertaining films, is still not particularly embraced in America? It's not like DC or comic books in America have ever been particularly progressive, generally speaking. Certainly some notable examples can be found, several published by DC or one of its imprints such as Vertigo, but comic books in the US still continue to be largely geared towards straight, white, cisgender men. Interestingly, a segment of the conversation on one particular blog involves Marvel's supposed more gay-friendly stance. Although Marvel did give Northstar a wedding, and has included the past few years popular gay young adult couple Hulkling and Wiccan, Marvel has had its own share of questionable decisions concerning LGBT characters and plots. And, it's not like Marvel (owned now by notoriously liberal company Disney) is making some political stand; it's trying to sell comics. And, Card has worked for Marvel Comics in the past. He wrote an alternate universe (i.e,. the Ultimate line) version of Iron Man and Marvel published adaptions of Card's novel. Although similar concerns were raised at the time, they were primarily (and, as far as I remember, only) from the comics reader community. A Google search for these citations reveals pages and pages of solicitations for the issues of he wrote for them, and nothing immediately about the controversy. Again, in short, neither company is particularly great in the LGBT arena. So, being disappointed in either company hiring somebody who is anti-gay rights seems a bit like being disappointed that ABC hired someone who doesn't believe in women's equality for The Bachelor. And, the outrage seems a bit disingenuous given the lack of attention to his more prolific profile at Marvel. Not that people aren't truly upset, but where was the concern then and now about his work with Marvel?

Also, Card isn't the first--he's just the latest in any number of possibly anti-gay writers. Chuck Dixon, long-time well-respected and established comics writer, has been accused of being anti-gay for his comments, and actually wrote gay characters. Bill Willingham, a popular author (and one who writes some very good books) and noted conservative, ended up using a gay character to make a joke about a "gay cure" that is tone-deaf at BEST. Frank Miller, ubermensch of sequential art, created the most evil Joker of all time--partially through queering him--an interpretation that informs most versions of the character today. And 300 (published at Dark Horse) is all kinds of homophobic. Even our allies can't get it right; famed straight-friend-to-Pedro-Zamora Judd Winick used the gay bashing of a character to further the straight protagonist's story (i.e., Terry Berg was "stuffed in a fridge"). And the list goes on and on--we just don't have the names of every writer who has done a violence or disservice to a LGBT character. And, here, while Card's politics and personal beliefs are odious, he's writing the straightest hero there ever was. You can't get straighter in any sense than Superman. So it's likely that no gay characters will be harmed in the making of the couple or so issues he writes. Where was the outrage from many of these same people about truly damaging representations of LGBT people in comics for years and years (not to mention women, non-white people, etc.)?

Of course it's Card's politics they care most about, not really the comic book, although why don't they protest Willingham too? Or his work at Marvel? I'm not suggesting that one can't object to a particular unless one has objected to all instances, but what's the motivation here? Why single out only Card when there are others as bad if not worse, depending on one's perspective? (Dixon, for instance, is not as political, but is far more ingrained in the industry, has had access to gay characters, and has more access to a range of titles and readership.) How concerned must we be with the political activities and personal perspectives of all comic writers and artists? And what is the logic in advocating for having them fired or not hired because of their politics?

I have chosen not to buy comics written by Chuck Dixon and I cannot stomach Frank Miller any longer. Although I'm not currently buying a Willingham title, I would if it interested me. He's an excellent writer and nothing in his comics writing has offended me (the ex-gay joke was tacky, but not overly offensive) as yet. If I were to happen to find out that a writer or artist I followed gay large sums of money to anti-gay organizations (and presumably Card, being a member of NOM, gives money to them), I would probably not purchase titles written/drawn by them. Therefore, I understand the impulse of those who don't want to buy his books. Purchasing can certainly be a political statement, although: a) boycotts can hurt people not politically involved and who need the money; b) it's difficult in this world to be ideologically pure in one's purchases. We're all assuredly buying from people and companies that spend their money in ways that we would consider unethical or antithetical to our own well-being. Nonetheless, Zizek offers an explanation on how we "buy our redemption" in cultural capitalism.

To summarize one aspect of Zizek's argument: modern altruism is completely bound up in captialism and consumerism such that the engines of private charity contribute to the destruction, or at least fail to address the underlying problems, of the causes, issues, and people they seek to help. We, as consumers, try to consume in ways that alleviate our guilt in the complicity of that destruction/failure to alleviate problems. In our particular situation, the application of Zizek is a bit different--here, people buy their redemption by boycotting. However, most of them don't purchase comics, so they must buy it through the only consumer option--advocating for his firing. This is a form of slacktivism, which isn't to say it's inherently bad or wrong, or ineffective, but doesn't, as Zizek points out, address the root problems. In this case, the root problem relative to the LGBT community is how we are portrayed or represented in comics, as well as comic's conservative bias towards straight, cis-, white men that produces some very bothersome storytelling and characters (and renderings of characters).

Certainly, too, the visibility of DC currently and Superman as a general cultural icon lends attention to this matter. And it makes for very good rhetoric to be able to say things like:

Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to.

Of course, it's a well worn joke among comic fans that Superman is an ass, but fine, most people don't think of him that way. (Although they should if they ever saw creepy, stalker Superman in Superman Returns.) And Iron Man as a symbol of corporate affluence isn't particularly compelling. We also get to trot out the race-analogy, in addition to further trivializing the Holocaust:

If this was a Holocaust denier or a white supremacist, there would be no question. Hiring that writer would be an embarrassment to your company. Well, Card is an embarrassment to your company, DC

I'm not going to engage in a discussion of the limits of the race-analogy here (and so many have done it much better than me already), but this kind of discourse being trotted out is curious to me. It seems to assume that many people with many objectionable beliefs and activities aren't employed by DC, or any company for that matter. It seems to suggest that if we only knew about the proclivities of any number of employees at any number of companies, we would quit purchasing from them, or call them out for hiring people who oppose us. Of course, this is a completely unsustainable strategy, and, we already know this, we just intentionally forget it and try to find redemption in other ways, as Zizek points out.

There is another interesting aspect to this that I can't begin to fully explore here. There is much emotion invested in the ethics of this tactic, as evidenced by the words being thrown around. Those who suggest that advocating for his firing morally equals conservatives trying to unseat LGBT people from their jobs are met with accusations of spinelessness, weakness, sarcasm, and often elision of the concern with this tactic. Of course, it's par for the course for many modern gays to trample those who fall outside party lines. Much of the pro-firing group seems, in my estimation, to fail to address these concerns. Most of the rebuttal is tantamount to: they do it to us, we should do it back and to not retaliate is to show weakness. Some suggest that to even question the tactic is to demonstrate a lack of resolve, willpower, or self-respect even. Yet, I think it's worthwhile to engage this question: are the tactics of the oppressor the tactics we wish to engage in order to gain liberation? Do such tactics lead to more liberation? To better lives for LGBT folk? I'm inclined to say they aren't and they don't. It makes it very difficult to hold the moral ground against those who attack our community, and this strategy, not unlike a boycott, may not even be effective. Perhaps, modern gay politics is like Superman: we have the need to be super, even if it makes asses out of us.

In total, it's a bit amazing to me that this issue takes hold of many people in ways seemingly more pressing issues do not. Partially I think it's because it's an expression of current LGB politics--we must appear strong, we must appear politically powerful, and we must control the image. We must appear normal and good American citizens at all costs (as per the quote invoking timeless American values above), and anyone of note who calls us any of those things we are quite familiar with already must be seen as cast down from their pulpit. Personally, I'd much rather energies in this area be spend on supporting LGBT-friendly comics and pushing against the ingrained misogyny, racism, and homo- and transphobia of the comics industry.

Some suggested comics from which to purchase redemption:
No Straight Lines: Four Decades of Queer Comics
Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic
The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For
Cavalcade of Boys V1, V2, V3 tri-pack
7 Miles a Second
Stuck Rubber Baby (New Edition)
Maggie the Mechanic (Love & Rockets)
The Sandman, Vol. 5: A Game of You
Kevin Keller (Archie) (I have not personally read the Kevin Keller books, but reviews are almost unanimously positive about his depiction as Riverdale's first openly gay character.)

(Full disclosure: These books are linked to through my Amazon associates account. I get a small--very small--residual if you make a purchase once you've entered Amazon through the link.)

Thinking Kevin Clash: Elmo and Queer Perversity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:25:00 +0000

A second accusation seems to have solidified what many suspected or feared about Kevin Clash--he's a homosexual(1). Yes, on the surface the concern is that he potentially had sex with a minor, or as some are eager to say, that he's a pedophile. Some seem just generally grossed out that a male would have sex with another male 15-30 years younger. And all of these may be actual concerns of people, but underlying it all is an implicit (and often explicit) policing and punishing of homosexuality.

I suspect Clash's career in puppetry was ruined by the first accusation. Homosexual men working with children are generally seen as perverts, regardless of what they do or how "well behaved." As Eve Sedgwick and David Halperin have pointed out, neither being "out" nor "in" the closet is refuge from being indicted about one's sexuality. Those who would accuse Clash of getting in trouble because he never publicly discussed his homosexuality or because they presume he was a closeted gay man looking for sexual or emotional gratification in any place he could find it miss the larger point that being gay is always precarious for those working with children.

And even if Clash did have a relationship and/or sex with a 15 or 16 year old, we can't know whether or not it was abusive or coercive based on age alone. Depending on where he had sex with a 15/16 year old it might have been illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't consensual. I'm not interested in constructing an apology for Clash or for man-boy love. Neither of these things interest me, although I think we might all benefit as a society discussing an ethic of consent: who can give consent and under what conditions, rather than imposing arbitrary age delimiters(2). We need to realize that many teens and pre-teens regularly engage in sexual activity and may be more experienced or knowledgeable about sex than people older than them, and may be fully able to consent to sexual advances. I am not saying this is the case with Clash nor do I know if he acted ethically or not, if these allegations are true. People seem all too willing to believe (and here I read fearing and "holding our breath," as Jezebel puts it, as being very ready to assent to this proposition) that Clash must be guilty, presumably because he's a homosexual man who has been caught metaphorically with his pants down.

Which is my point: I'm very disturbed by how quickly I've seen people, gay men prominent among them, quickly accuse Clash with very little evidence and with a knowing tone of condemnation, despite these kind of accusations being quickly and easily levied against gay men for decades and up to today. It's as if they're eager to distance themselves from the gay behaving badly, as if this will provide the cover they need to hold on to their claim to full citizen status. Never mind the fact that the most tame of their sexual practices almost certainly qualify them as repulsive, immoral, perverse, and depraved, regardless of the age of their sexual partner, with many people, simply because they do them with other men.

Rubin's Sex Hierarchy from "Thinking Sex"

Gayle Rubin covered this territory almost thirty years ago now in Thinking Sex, "For over a century, no tactic has been as reliable as the appeal to protect children." There are many additional ideas that Rubin offers useful to this discussion, but I shall only tackle one more: sexual hierarchy, or, as Rubin calls it "the charmed circle." Those whose sexual identities and practices closest to heterosexual, monogamous, procreative, vanilla, paired, same generational, and private (among others) are considered "good, normal, natural, blessed." For those who start to deviate from any one of these, they enter "the outer limits: bad, abnormal, unnatural, damned." The contested ground (e.g., masturbation, promiscuous heterosexuals) may vary by local and time, but some acts remain clearly in the "bad sex" category, and Clash at this point has violated several of them. As a man who has engaged in homosexual acts and has had those acts come to public attention, it doesn't matter about the other conditions: he's guilty of "bad sex" de facto. Having a job with children makes his now-public sexuality especially damning, as children are not to have any contact with the sexual.

It probably does not help his case that both his accusers still are young and effeminate looking. This almost certainly reinforces the idea of Clash as predator to many. Paradoxically, there is something of a "rough trade" and/or "rent boy" aspect to these young men, especially with Sheldon Stephens, that further serves nonetheless to place Clash further out on the outer limits, firmly entrenching him in the "bad sex" camp, regardless or whether the age allegations are true or not. In short, Clash was and is damned if he did and damned if he didn't. His crime at this time is not that he sexually preyed on children, but that (especially as a man who works with children) he committed homosexual acts that became public knowledge. Much of what modern gay rights builds itself on is predicated on hiding our sexual lives--we forward our love and relationships that fall closer to the charmed circle--we run from the queer and homosexual sex practices of ourselves and others.

In 2006, Dustin Lance Black, gay activist and Milk screenwriter, was reviled for pictures showing him having bareback sex with his then-boyfriend, leading to Black apologizing. Despite being in a a relationship that in many ways conformed or seemed to conform to the charmed circle, one public depiction of homosexual sex (and condomless at that!) was sufficient to shame him and punish him. This simple case study shows the precarious position gay men, and all who fall outside the charmed circle, inhabit and how easily collapsible the security we so eagerly seek is. All queer people stand to be Kevin Clashes so long as the sex hierarchy remains unchallenged.

Footnote:
(1) It is unclear how Clash self-identifies. All that can be said at this point is that he appears to have engaged in same-sex sex at some point. I refer more to how society will and already has labelled him. Clash is divorced with a daughter, but, of course, once a man has sex with another man in our society, he is labelled a homosexual or gay.

(2) Foucault explains, "an age barrier laid down by law does not have much sense. Again, the child may be trusted to say whether or not he was subjected to violence. An examining magistrate, a liberal, told me once when we were discussing this question: after all, there are eighteen-year-old girls who are practically forced to make love with their fathers or their stepfathers; they may be eighteen, but it's an intolerable system of constraint." Or, as a friend of mine put it another way, "21 to drink, 16 to drive, 18 to serve in the military or sign contracts; perhaps we should wait until 25 when the brain is mostly formed to allow anybody to consent to anything."

Election Aftermath: Scared Whites and Will Legitimate Extremism Shut Down the GOP Body?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:28:00 +0000

about the economy

Two thoughts in the aftermath of the election that I keep coming back to:

1) A lot of straight White people are "scared" of the "increasing division" in our country. I read this from the encounters I've had and accounts I've heard from other friends of people with high amounts of privilege finally coming to the realization that the area of their dominance is dawning. There is still substantial White power and influence in culture, of course, but the fact that people with Brown and Black skin, women, and gay and lesbian people substantially influenced the election to keep our first Black president in power undoubtedly has shaken the notion that White people can band together and get whatever they want. The unassailable ability of White supremacy to put Black people in their place has sustained a palpable hit, and White people are reacting. I suspect many of them were assured that either their fellow Whites and White skinned people were sufficiently racist (we're not) or that the numbers of the White voting block was powerful enough to counter the Black and Hispanic voting blocks.

Certainly it must be scary to realize that others who have been oppressed are now asserting their rights and ascending to positions of authority and gaining cultural power. My initial thought is that I need those people to think through their fear and express it productively, and ideally transform it into an embrace of a new kind of society and for those of us agitating for further change to consider that while some hate is hate, some stems from fear and we should recognize the difference. It will also help if people like Bill O'Reilly would quit perpetuating the idea that people of other races are trying to steal from White people through the government.

2) Today listening to Diane Rehm talk to several Republican coalition representatives today on re-thinking their issues, and they refused to engage (what I see as) the core issues for them. They talk in marketing terms (i.e., "brand") and blame those who let slip what they really think (i.e, Akin and Mourdock). Most of them at least said those two were inexcusable but one characterized them as just not speaking well on the subject (no, they are not just inelegant). "Branding" is so far the most circulated discourse I hear on the radio from Republicans. Yet one cannot reach out to people who do not feel welcome or included, and when you happen to have representatives of your party express explicitly what your policies and ideology promote. In other words, if you support restricting a woman's autonomy to make her own ethical, moral, and religious decisions about her body, then don't be surprised when you have people in your organization that conceptualize distinctions of "legitimate" and "God willed" rape. Rachel Maddow covers the consequences of such male-dominated, extreme absolutism.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I had to quit listening when a registered Republican emailed the show and said he could not vote GOP until they unhooked the political from the theological. Instead of a thoughtful response to loyal constituent, the two respondents talked about completely unrelated topics. I wonder who in the GOP has the fortitude to grapple with the extremist position many GOP people take and how deeply in bed they are with religious fundamentalists? Can the GOP realize that White power is diminishing, male dominance is waning, and the hegemony of heterosexuality is being questioned and respond to the changing cultural climate? Can they understand that absolutism, even or especially financial absolutism, like dedication to Norquist's tax pledge is a problem to achieving reasonable conservative goals and likely harms their goals more than serves them? Can the GOP be conservative yet inclusive and pro-citizenry over pro-business? I do not expect that they will quit being conservative, but I wonder if there is not a place for a more moderate, Eisenhower-like conservatism? Can one be conservative and still believe in equal treatment of all people?

Conversations with conservatives suggests to me that this may indeed be possible to some degree, although one of the obstacles to this rests in White people resisting their fear and their racism. Too many White people think that bringing up racial inequality is somehow counter-productive to equality. They seem to want an equal world yet don't want to pay the cost of centuries of White supremacy. That cost, at minimum, is talking about White supremacy, which makes White people very uncomfortable and afraid fast. Yet, it's a necessary part. People of all racial identities who are middle and upper class need to realize the huge barriers for working class and lower socio-economic class individuals to achieving financial solvency and independence. Those interested in less government should be willing to negotiate rational compromises with those of us who favor more government in ways that doesn't stake out a ridiculous "no government" position or that demonizes working class people (and usually Black and Hispanic people) as loafers and moochers.

In short, how things proceed depend on many factors, but one of the most important to me is for straight White people to examine their fear, to stop relying on century old stereotypes, and to unabashed confront how inequitable our nation really is rather than deny it and run from it.

Butch on the Street, Femme in the Sheets (of this Book)

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:31:00 +0000

Growing up in one of the larger and more prosperous towns of Mississippi, I had no access to representations of gay men or women. Despite growing up Southern Baptist, gays were not denounced in my church, they were never spoken of at all. In sixth grade, a bully harassed me for much of the school year for being gay, but I didn't know what that meant. I am not sure that he did either. Applied to me, it seemed to be more of an evolution of an insult that began when I took allergy medication at lunch time. I went from being a druggie to gay when druggie seemed to cause insufficient pain. I cried in the arms of my mother, but only because I knew gay wasn't good--whatever it meant. I was bullied in other grades also, although the insult of gay was not thrown around. Still, as a scrawny introverted nerd scared of getting in trouble, I failed to perform masculinity properly and suffered the consequences.

Despite experiencing same-sex attraction in my teen years, I was unable to identify it as such at the time, largely because I had no conception of gay people or a gay identity. I had no way to make sense of what those feelings meant, so I explained them away in the only ways I could: brotherly love, admiration, envy, and so on. I would not make sense of those feelings until I was nearly thirty. Even having gay and lesbian friends in college didn't help me identify myself as one--it honestly never occurred to me that I might be one too. (Although later I would discover they clearly marked me as one when I was told it was about time I came out.)

I was, to use David Halperin's term, a proto-gay. Gay in the sense of experiencing same-sex attraction, but proto, in not having a consciousness of it. Halperin specifically uses this term to designate boys who will grow up to experience same sex object choice, but have not yet done so. The earliest I recall attraction to another boy was around seventh grade.

Yet prior to both my arrival at a gay identity and my earliest recollection of same-sex attraction, I was drawn to non-gay cultural artifacts that reflected a gay subjectivity, or in other words, cultural objects and characters that reflected how it felt to be a (proto-)gay. Bugs Bunny, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Paul Lynde, Wayland Flowers and Madame (yes, both gay, but coded or covertly so), Flip Wilson, Beau Arthur, Kathy Bates, Bewitched, Maude, Golden Girls, Designing Women, Auntie Mame, Steel Magnolias, Misery, Dolores Claiborne, Mommie Dearest, the Muppets, Spider-Man. (I realize some of these may seem more "obviously" gay appropriations than others.) Specifically, I was a white nerd gay, and my cultural attractions reflect this sensibility.

This experience, along with my experiences with other gay men, makes David Halperin's premise (or one of them) in How To Be Gay highly compelling, to say nothing of Halperin's rigorous methodology, staggeringly incisive analysis, clever insight, necessary contributions, and sense of wit. In short, David Halperin's How to be Gay is a tour de force.

Halperin is making an important contribution to new ways of thinking about gay subjectivity in non-pathologizing, non-essentializing, and non-psychological ways. Perhaps more significantly, he's making a methodological and conceptual intervention in queer and cultural studies. The book is bound to be misunderstood by gays, the gay-friendly, and the anti-gay, as was his course of the same name when it garnered state and national attention, and as the only review on Amazon (as of 9/8/12) provides an example. Still, Halperin anticipates many of the criticisms and answers them, at least briefly, or to clarify what his beyond the focus of his inquiry. Halperin offers an essay (subscription required) this week in The Chronicle of Higher Education this week that provides the main argument of his book, if readers are short on time.

Halperin works from the premise that there is a recognizable gay male culture (e.g., Broadway, drag, camp, love of certain female icons, architectural restoration) that gay men created initially at a time to provide a means of self-expression when few or no explicit representations, at least no stigmatizing ones, were available. Although the specifics change over time (e.g., from Judy to Gaga), and post-Stonewall liberation has afforded a bevvy of positive gay male cultural objects, Halperin argues this practice of appropriating straight cultural objects still continues. His question is: if this practice continues, then why, especially in this era of gay liberation? What might reclaiming and identifiying with "straight" culture say about the experience and feelings of gay men, no matter what political or legislative inroads have been made? How might it reveal the domination of straight norms and values in the wake of gay progress? (And what might it say about that progress?) Why do gays appropriate and identify with straight-produced cultural more so than with gay-produced culture? As mentioned, Halperin also seeks to account for gay subjectivity without resorting to psychological, psychoanalytic, cognitive-science / essentialist ideas (i.e., that we are "born this way."). But to clarify, he isn't interested in how people become homosexual, but how they engage with gay culture (which may be to not engage it) and why.

Halperin is clear that the gay culture he describes in this book is American, white gay male culture. Beyond the scope of this book, he encourages others to pick up this project, if they are so inclined, and use it for other aspects of gay culture (e.g., while he uses a scene from Mildred Pierce, and discusses the cult of Joan Crawford, he acknowledges that examining the interest gay men have in Bette Davis may produce different insights) and to examine other gay populations' (e.g., gay men of color, non-American gays, lesbians, trans people, gay nerds) cultural identifications. Thus, for me, Halperin has me thinking about my investments in the straight cultural objects that I grew up with--and continue to invest in. How did Spider-Man help proto-gay me express my decidedly ill-fitting interface with the world? Bugs Bunny? The various women celebrities and women-oriented shows I enjoyed? Flip Wilson, especially as Geraldine? Why do those cultural artifacts still resonate with me more strongly than many gay cultural representations available to me today?

Halperin uses substantial space to explain how he sees one scene from Mildred Pierce (and a parallel scene form Mommie Dearest) doing gay cultural work. By this focus, Halperin provides an example of a methodology and illustrates the difficulty of this project. His exhaustive examination of this scene demonstrates the complexity of the task to go beyond it.

Halperin does not make totalizing or universalizing claims about gay experience,--or posit that gay culture expresses some superior or natural experience. In fact, he notes that many gay men, or men who are attracted to other men, don't "do" gay as well as some straight men and women. People become gay, in the cultural sense, through indoctrination, although, curiously, gays and proto-gays in various gay and non-gay communities may share similar cultural affections. Gay, in the way Halperin discusses it, is a cultural practice, not a sex-object choice, and so anybody can do or not do gay, regardless of their sexuality. This means some gay (i.e., homosexual) people aren't particularly gay. Or in, Halperin's words, "Sometimes homosexuality is wasted on gay people."

By saying that, Halperin is cattily (read: gay-ly) asserting the value in being cultural gayness. Although not attributing any superiority to it, he believes that gay culture makes a contribution--understanding the world gay-ly (whether one is homosexual or heterosexual), provides a way of undoing limiting and harmful straight norms that will stay in place (and are still in place) no matter how many equality gains are made on a political or legal level. Equality does not undo oppressive heterosexual culture, and, as such, gays and queers will continue to need to invest in certain cultural practices that allow an expression of a differing subjectivity, and as a way of resisting hetero-norms. Halperin understands a political utility to gay culture, and so laments how quickly many gays are to divest themselves of it. Gay culture exposes the artifice of heterosexual privilege and performance and crafts a space, although limited, of resistance and opposition to it.

I find this work masterful and a necessary intervention in queer studies. Queer theory is, as Halperin notes, notoriously resistant to thinking beyond identity, even as it critiques it, and generally resists inquiring into any idea of shared culture. Identity is too limiting for Halperin, and I welcome his conceptual intervention into queer studies, reviving older questions, lines of inquiry, and concepts, often with a fresh perspective or twist. What may be overlooked is the methodological contribution here: Halperin doesn't lay out a specific way of tackling such a project, but his work provides a model for it. This work unfortunately will likely be overlooked by social scientists and those doing cultural work in professional fields, but it could provide a rich contribution.

I want to suggest this work shares some commonality with Foucault's end of life line of inquiry. Having moved from how institutional discourses created subjects, Foucault started thinking about how individuals create their own and others' subjectivities--how they discerned the truth of themselves and who was truth-tellers. There are some notable differences, but I see these projects having points of intersections.

Ultimately, this review does a disservice to this important work, and I have omitted or under-emphasized a great deal of important and compelling material, the least of which is not Halperin's re-thinking of the relationship between sexuality and gender expression in gay culture. As a gay man (and a gay nerd), I find How to be Gay compelling and a welcome response to modern gay identity politics. This is an inventive, rigorous piece of academic work, although Halperin's language is very accessible. Readers will benefit, however, from some familiarity with lesbian/bi/gay or queer studies, particularly Michael Warner's The Trouble with Normal. I strongly recommend this to anyone who has ever felt queer, or different (regardless of your sexuality), from the rest of society. Halperin's methodology doesn't have to be limited to gay men, but following his lead, one can think differently about the cultural objects one picks up and what they might say about how you feel to be queer.

The Truth is Out There (But It's Hard to Find)

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:45:00 +0000

Discerning the truth about political facts and claims is an onerous and unfulfilling one. What you're most likely to find is that, by and large, everyone lies or distorts. Certainly, no televised advertising can be trusted (this seems given), the candidates are going to present their case in the most favorable light possible, and we cannot rely on journalists to present any kind of useful analysis, a small handful aside.

The two best sources I've found so far, FactCheck and Politifact are certainly useful tools, although they require a good deal of time to wade through to understand the often shaded nuances (outright fabrications are easier to sort out) of the claims made by politicians, PACs, SuperPACs, and other partisan organizations. Sometimes, the About page on Urban Legends and Netlore is useful, and Snopes can be good where more personal claims are made (e.g., Q: Is Hillary Clinton the liberal Marxist America-hater I know she is? A: If you take her statements out of context, she's handing America over to Fidel Castro right now.) None of these sources are infallible and both liberals and conservatives alike have taken specific aim at Politifact from time to time, but these sites do try to lay out data as much as possible

I wonder how widely these (or other reliable) sources are used and who uses them? I'm inclined to think only those most invested or interested in political discourse and strategies do--with most people leaning on soundbites offered on broadcast news, entertainers (e.g., Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Stewart) primarily, faux-political commentors (e.g., Hannity, Van Susteren, Schultz) and, to a lesser extent, partisan wonks (e.g., Huckabee, Maddow). Confirmation bias (i.e., the theory that we seek and ignore evidence in ways that help maintain the beliefs we want to maintain) is a real threat for people of all political inclinations. And, existing research suggests that getting people to re-think their deeply held beliefs, even opposing factual evidence is offered, is very difficult anyway.

As an example, I'll use the above popular macro, seen circulating on a Facebook page near you, to illustrate how difficult discerning such claims can be, or at least how much more complex such claims are.
I'll be addressing some of these items, but not all of them. The time to investigate each one is not necessary to prove my point.

"Recession is over."

This is a highly debatable claim, completely contingent on what you consider as ending the recession. And even if you want to claim it's over, does it matter when so many Americans are still facing an array of economic hardships?

"27 Straight months of job increase" / "4 Million Private Sector Jobs Recovered" / "Unemployment coming down."

These kinds of claims depend on how you count such things, and different people use different markers. Both Democrats and Republicans often use certain standards for themselves and different ones for the opposition. There are also regular fluctuations, and unemployment varies state to state, with many seeing increases lately. And, again, whatever gains are made (and there have been some), there are still very real existing challenges and problems.

"Dow Jones (DJI) over 13,000"

Yes, but only as of March 2012, and it has experienced significant drops under Obama also. Overall, it's been steadily climbing in the past two decades, however. I don't know enough about the Dow to know to what extent the administration influences this, or to what degree this signals any returns for most citizens. One Motley Fool blogger thinks it's less indicative of a recovery than some purport it to be. And, again, to beat a tune on a dead horse, the economy is a mixed bag.

"1.4T Deficit to 1.3T Deficit"

Politifact shows that is true only if you begin in 2009, and attribute none of that year's deficit to the Obama administration. Even if one wants to claim that Obama and Democrats can't be held responsible for the increase ffrom 458 billion to 1.4 Trillion, after the next year's decline to 1.29T, it has increased since. FactCheck shows that expenditures differ dramatically from revenues. Partly to blame are Bush era tax cuts (extended by the current administration) and continually increased spending on the military. FactCheck smartly assesses that there is plenty of blame to go around to both parties and to the American public that stubbornly refuses both cuts or increased taxes.

"GM & Chrysler Profitable"

TARP was a highly controversial move, and while it clearly had some positive effects, debate continues as to its potential negative ramifications and precedents, along with its clear failures (such as not preventing many foreclosures).

"Clear exit strategy" and "Osama dead."

It's almost certain that we will have a continued presence in Afghanistan well past 2014. Obama has also been incredibly hawkish, expanding drone usage, which may kill who knows how many innocents. Obama also has not questioned the logic of increased spending in the military. Bin Laden's death is certainly a great case of national schadenfreude, and it's perhaps only human to desire revenge. In terms of the President, it's more of a symbol used to refute the attempted claims to show him weak on defense, to resist the stereotype of the effeminate liberal. No, the President has performed his masculinity; now, why is that such an accomplishment?

I do all of this to make a simple point: Both sides lie and distort, or, if we want to be more generous (and we may not want to), offer truths, to quote Ben Kenobi, "from a certain point of view." For instance, Ohio governor Kasich smartly chose his wording about the impact of the auto industry bailout on Ohio. Making a statement about "direct" jobs "created" by the Obama bailout, Kasich can claim a small figure that overlooks jobs retained and indirect jobs created and/or retained. What he said was true, but it elides other relevant information. Related to all of this, the truth is vastly more complex that most mediums accommodate them.

My second point is that we, the American public, are woefully under-educated (and I include myself in that) in the complexities of these issues and frequently fail to discern what that "point of view" is.

My third point is that these kind of claims stand no chance of changing the conversation; they just rehearse schoolyard taunts that don't address more systemic and institutional issues that cause both parties to act against the interest of the vast majority of Americans--and a public that just participates by being the crowd that stands around the fight and yells.

An ancillary point that I haven't proven here, but I think by using these resources one will find, that in many of the economic respects, the Democratic and Republican platforms are shades of the same neoliberal hue. No politician is holding any of the banks or any individuals accountable for their backwater dealings and, indeed, Bernanke seems to collude with some of the worst practices out there. That said, I'm not willing to go back to Bush-era-like policies that will privilege the wealthiest at the cost of the rest of us, and exacerbate the problems that such policies greatly contributed to in the first place. Indeed, I wonder if it's possible to sever, or even minimize, the oligarchic rule over American life at this point without a major collapse occurring.

For various non-economic reasons (and some economic), I'll be voting Democrat this season. And those reasons are important--the future make-up of the Supreme Court is just one of those vital areas. Romney and Ryan clearly do not support gay civil rights in their Oval Office aspirations, even if they aren't always overtly hostile to them; his views on issues relative to women's health are also contrary to mine. Economically, I do not wish to see the wealthy further advantaged while middle and lower income people are penalized. I do not wish to see cuts in federal college loans. I do not wish to see the kind of

The Identity Facism of Modern Gay Liberation

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:44:00 +0000

For about a week now, much wailing and gnashing of teeth and lamenting of the faithful has been had by those who view themselves as gay liberationists or activists over Cynthia's Nixon statment that sexuality was a choice for her. Despite affirming that this may not be the choice for everybody, she felt this was true for her.
Oh, the uproar. Such vitriol is usually reserved for those who equate gay people with pedophiles and Nazis. The nasty comments across the web have come fast and furious. Much of it has been incredibly malicious, sexist, hateful, and biphobic (i.e., fearful of bisexuals)   It's extremely clear that many people are deeply invested in the narrative that sexuality is innate, biological, immutable.

I understand why people may feel that way. It seems that if we can prove that sexuality is as predetermined as race, then we have a iron clad argument agains discrimination. Moreover, many people likely feel that they experience some kind of primal, out of their control attraction or urge to men or women. But, there's a lot wrong with these assumptions, which usually go unexamined. And, from the look of things, people don't seem very inclined toward thinking too deeply about them.

It's probably never a good way to start off an essay by referring you to better done essays, but Scott Long's excellent blog post really is must-reading on this topic, as is his follow up: "Frots, g0ys, and other options." While I was swilling this around in my mind, he said it first and certainly better than I have or am going to here. Long provides a great overview of Foucaultian thought on sexuality, troubles quite accessibly and articulately current notions of sexuality as put forth by the mainstream lesbian and gay movement, and rightfully takes the modern "liberation" movement to task. I would also recommend Frank Bruni's New York Times essay. Bruni lays out the research that's been done so far on sexual orientation and shows that not only is it conclusive, but persuasively argues (along lines similar to Long) that it's unnecessary for equality.

I will re-emphasize some of the thoughts expressed in those essays and add a couple of my own.

First, it's ridiculous to accuse Nixon of using politically harmful language. With or without Nixon's statements, anti-gay organizations are going to continue to use whatever language they find helpful to their cause. They have come up with their own harmful language on their own prior to Nixon and they will and would have continued to do so without her statements. Her claim is no more harmful than the dozens if not hundreds of testimonies that being gay is innate is helpful.

Long briefly mentions that the race analogy itself is slippery ground. Race, like sexuality and gender, is a social construction: there is nothing inherently biological about race. Humans create race based on physical appearances and then imbue that construction with all kinds of meanings that often have nothing to do with those physical appearances and everything to do with the life circumstances people find themselves in because they are categorized as being a certain race. Nella Larsen's novella Passing deals with the uncertainty of race and sexuality.

The highly sexist nature of many comments made disturbs me. I've seen repeated in more than one forum some iteration of "women can fake it, men can't" or "women's sexuality is different from men's." The first statment presumes that because women can "fake" it (i.e., don't have highly noticeable erections), they, for some reason, will or would. It also presumes that men couldn't manage to arouse themselves through some fantasy life, but that's far less troubling than the implication that women, lacking physical signs (perhaps these people don't know what to look for as signs of female arousal?) women will just willy-nilly choose to go after whatever is available. Usually that rhetoric is deployed against men, but presumably because people don't like Nixon's statement, that charge can now be levied against women. It also ignores the fact that men who have sex with men (whether gay-identified or not) frequently have had no problem getting it up with women at some point in their life or that they manage to do so in their marriages, even when they prefer sexual contact with men, but stay in marriages because of societal pressures.

The second statement supposes some kind of essential, innate difference between men and women. I'll first mention that those pushing this line are reifying strict gender binaries. These people are usually speaking in terms of "plumbing," to use their so charming words. Yet, gender is more than plumbing and not everyone for that matter has distinct sex organs. How do we configure trans-desire? These people cannot account for the complexities of desire and identity. Even with cis-gendered people, men and women may be socialized differently, but a panoply of sexual desires and behaviors exist that cannot nor should not be easily labelled. To say otherwise is to be reductionistic about both women and men.

At minimum it is easy enough to understand that among men and women, gay, straight, bi, whatever, some prefer vanilla, some kink, and some everything in between. It's never just about attraction to another person of the same or opposite sex. It's about attractions to certain people of certain sexes, it's about attraction to certain gender performatives (some people like hyper-masculine or buth while others prefer more femme), it's about certain ages, it's about certain body parts (it's more than just about genitals), it's about certain practices (oral, anal, vaginal, frottage, mutual masturbation, trapezes), it's about numbers (by oneself, with another, with three, with a group) and so on. No matter how much one wants to boil desire down to "I can't help it," the fact is you can and you do. These things often change with age and with experiences.

Foucault famously asserted that the homosexual was a medical-juridical-psychiatric term used to make known certain people. It both constrained and enabled people to speak as a certain identity. Prior to the invention of this word in the late 1800's, there was no such thing as a homosexual identity. In an interview, Foucault stated that he thought the word gay had certain interesting possibilities to allow for political action, movement, and speech. Now, sadly, it's being used as a way to limit speech and identity, and ends up working against any true progressive politics for queers; clearly no longer a tool of liberation, gay has become a tool of identity facism.

How Do You Solve a Problem like Marcus?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:54:00 +0000

A queer colleague of mine brought up this article about the potential problems of calling Marcus Buchmann out as gay. The concerns about what this rhetoric potentially does is important to examine and take seriously.

It's been popular among (at least the gay blogosphere) to point out Marcus Buchmann's more effeminte qualities, including but not limited to the nickname "Ladybird," which I do find fairly amusing. As with most things, the rhetorical strategy, politics and rationale behind such a move are complex.

Marcus ceratinly "reads" gay to me, to be sure, although this is never a certain thing. Marcus seems to read to many other queer folk also. And when there is good proof that someone who is anti-gay engages in same-sex sexual behavior, that definitely needs to be called out. Is "reading" an anti-gay figure sufficient grounds to point out hypocricy? Perhaps, but it certainly comes with the opportunity for the opposition to cry fowl and make accusations of bullying.

Given the pro-LGBT anti-bullying rhetoric popular among even the mainstream populance, in large part to the "It Gets Better" campaign, making bully accusations against gays and lesbians is a powerful accusation, if it can stick. In the case of Bachmann, I don't think it sticks with anyone other than those pre-disposed to support Bachmann (i.e., extremely conservative people who would be anti-gay in their politics regardless). One of the primary reasons is that this rhetoric, when applied to Bachmman, is not bullying. Bullying involves a power differential from which the victim has little or no recourse to defense. This certainly is not Marcus Buchmann's situation. I think the LGBT activist community should stay vigilant, however, to rhetorical strategies that might fall into bullying, however, when employed against a different individual.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I do think that some of the rhetoric against Marcus verges if not crosses over into sissyphobia / femme-phobia (aka veiled misgony). That is not okay, and, yet, sadly, still seems a popular technique among gay men to denigrate other gay (or queer) men.  Where such rhetoric crosses the line from reading queerness to shaming it will undoubtably vary among people.

Pointing out "hey, this guy seems terribly gay for being so anti-gay" could reify notions that people with same-sex desires possess certain noticeable and obvious qualities. I think people in the LGBTQ community "get" what is being said here: some of us do have some stereotypical markers of queerness, while others don't have any and Marcus seems to have a ton.  But does the normative public understand what is being said here? (Probably not.)  Yet, people who think that queers are easily identifiable are not likely to change their mind, regardless of the absence of rhetoric that reinforces thier belief (or the presence of rhetoric that challenges their belief). Although this kind of joking might reinforce their belief, but they aren't going to change anyway. Politically, anti-gay forces might be able to say that we are participating and acknowledging their rhetoric, but, again, they aren't going to change tactics even if every pro-queer person steadily and adamently asserted that you can't identify every queer.

Ultimately, I'd be much more comfortable if some evidence of queer sexual behavior was being used to prove hypocrisy. Were Michele to stay in the presidential race long enough, some of it might surface, but she likely will be knocked out early enough that it won't. There may, though, be value in pointing to what seems queer about the very anti-queer Marcus. Still, the message could often be crafted better, as much of it does translate as denouncements not of Marcus's hypocrisy, but his sexuality. The line is often very thin between "the gay needs to stop being anti-gay" to "what a faggot."

Marcus Rhetoric Typifies Current Gay Political Rhetoric

The politics around the Bachmanns does highlight problems with current gay and lesbian politics. Mainstream gay and lesbian political rhetoric has veered towards the conservative during the current marriage equality movement. Gays and lesbians are happily denouncing non-monogamous, non-traditional (adult, consentual) sexual relationships and couplings in the current rhetoric. Anyone not mainstream gay is left out in the cold; there is no space for queers in mainstream gay politics. Accordingly, the image and definition of gayness is now fairly heavily policed; those not presenting a respectable gay image or daring to exhibit stereotypical mannerisms, no matter how authentic, are not welcome. Accordingly, Marcus's effeminite mannerisms become a target (and sometimes his weight, equally reprehensible). Queers not wanting to settle down with one other queer are seens as being immature, irresponsible, and giving gays and lesbians a bad name. (That line of thought is not new at all, but certainly seems to have picked up steam.)

The new gay and lesbian politic, in its conservative form, also reinforces the hetero/homo binary. One is one or the other.  None of the accusations I've seen even suggest that Marcus might be bi, polyamorous, or have some kind of sexual desire or behavior that is not easily categorized. Even if the man enjoys some form of sex with another man (and usually Marcus revilers posit he is the receiver in any sexual act, again pointing to a form of femme-phobia / misogyny), we still wouldn't know what that says about his sexuality. It certainly would mark him as the hypocrite we all suspect him of being (and Michele by implication), but it wouldn't mark him necessarily as gay.  Straight-identified men engage in same-sex sex ocassionally as well, not to mention various permutations of sexual behavior that may or may not be labelled. But, there's no room for this kind of thinking in modern gay politics: now, it's the "one time" rule. Despite the fact that I know many people for whom sexuality is fluid and changing as much as others seem to have their's firm and fixed, gay politics fears putting a face on fluidity. Although gay politics needs an ethic and argument for rights for variable sexuality, it hedges its bets on the "born this way" theory. Gay liberation stands to become its own version, if it has not already, of the Bachmanns.

On the Baby Boomer Generation

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:25:00 +0000

This really is a gross oversimplification, but the following quote really does capture the gestalt of my feelings on how the baby boom generation as a whole (there are always exceptions) has really impacted the world (and continues to do so):

For all that Baby Boomers fetishise “the Sixties” as some mythical time when everything was perfect – not realising that it’s their own generation who have pretty comprehensively fucked the world up for those of us who are following them, by pulling the ladder up after themselves – they did have the luck to be a giant demographic bubble of youth at precisely the point when this could almost sensibly seem true. The ‘long 1960s’ (from roughly the Suez crisis to the OPEC crisis) were built on cheap oil, and that meant everything from cheap plastic consumer items to cheap transport. The Western world was rich and (other than Vietnam) at peace, and that meant an explosion in possibilities, ... After the OPEC crisis all this changed. We can’t afford hopes and dreams any more. To do that the Boomers would have to make sacrifices.

From, of all places, a commentary on Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: 1969 over at the Mindless Ones.

No Help for The Help

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:20:00 +0000

I did not pay much attention to the move The Help initially; I was vaguely aware of it and largely uninterested in it because I have an intense dislike of movies where a heroic white "rescues" (in some shape or manner) a black person (often after the black person in question has served, affirmed, or rescued the white person in some way). The Blind Side is just one of the most recent of these, but Crash and Driving Miss Daisy fit here. Even a movie I greatly enjoy, The Shawshank Redemption, has this unfortunate plot element in it. devout and/or lazy. I have no interest in narratives that portray any person, group, community, identity, or culture uniformly and simplisticly, but I hold a special distain for narratives that portray black people as magical, saintly, stupid, sassy, or criminal.

However, a growing body of critique has emerged around the movie. One of the more compelling pieces is this letter from the Association of Black Women Historians detailing the historical inaccuracies, glosses, omissions, and context of the work. I did not originally intend to see the movie out of apathy, and now I do not want to see the movie out of antagonism towards its plot and characters. I will not financially support a project that fails to portray racism as it existed so that the audience can feel good about themselves and the characters. Instead, given the idea by Black Youth Project (see link below), I am throwing my money behind Wench, a novel optioned for a movie written from the perspective of Black slave women by a Black woman.

One commenter at Black Youth Project suggested that any film highlighting racism in any form is a good thing: that raising conciousness about racism is, in and of itself, notable and worthwhile. To this I say, "no." Sugar-coating racism allows white people to continue to think that: 1) racism is a thing of the past; 2) racism is about a few hateful people, not about a system of oppression that white people still benefit from and perpetuate; 3) racism is about the past and those people, not about the present and me; 4) the racism of the past wasn't "so bad"; 5) racism of the era (and of today, although less obvious to white people) didn't involve torture, murder, and rape; 6) defeating racism / being non- or anti-racist is about white folks not abusing (and sometimes being nice to) black people. (Based on the reviews I've read, it seems that this movie and book doesn't even follow this: the protagonist uses the black people for her own benefit. But, she's "sweet" about it, so it's not really abusive.) I could go on. Perhaps Dr. Melissa Harris Perry puts it best when she says, "“The Help reduces sexism, systematic violent racism, and labor exploitation to a catfight that can be won by cunning and spunk.”

The Help, based on the reviews, seems to fail to address the imbalance of power and privilege inherent to the protagonist's project. As a budding qualitative researcher, I understand that it may be impossible to conduct research equitably: some form of power imbalance will always exists between researched and researcher, no matter how far the researcher goes to minimize explotation or to reciprocate. Apparently the film doesn't bother to begin to question the ethics and consequences of a highly privileged (racially, economically, educationally) individual using a highly oppressed and marginalized individuals (in every way) for research or self-promotion.

I have said in person and on this blog that black women have played important roles in my life and have helped me out when they didn't need or have to help me. I would not begin, however, to assume I could put myself in their place or come to a full understanding of their lives today, much less in the pre- and early civil rights era. I may, at some future point, even conduct research with and for black women, but that would be filtered heavily - and acknowledged as such - through a highly privileged lens. I would want to make sure that, as much as possible, I forgrounded their voices in the material and that the power dynamics surrounding them culturally were fully unpacked. That research would also be conducted with liberatory aims and with the outcome of better serving black women in higher education. Sadly, The Help seems to serve only white people.

Reviews that have informed my perspective on The Help:

Melissa Harris Perry's Review: "Ahistorical and deeply troubling": An interesting note to me is that Dr. Harris Perry notes that she could be labeled as a "killjoy" for critiquing a "feel-good" movie this way. Sara Ahmed presented a wonderful lecture on this where she smartly observed that so often it is the one pointing out the problem, rather than the actual problem, who is pointed to as the problem (and labeled a "killjoy" or as "willful.").

Arts Critics Atlanta: "'The Help': A Feel Good Movie for White People"

Black Youth Project: "On Not Seeing 'The Help'"

This Amazon review of the novel

NPR: Lesbian Couples Wed More than Gay Men

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:17:00 +0000

Never mind that NPR has now mainstreamed the best known lesbian joke ever. What I really like from this news story are these sound bites:

"When you're an outsider, in order to make it okay you haveto embrace that otherness of yourself, that you live on the outside. And many of us unconsciously don't want to totally give that up. I like it. We're used to being different and being on the outside. Now, with marriage, you're just like everyone else. So there is a resistance to it." -- Leslie Cohen

"So, lesbian and gay people have formed very complex families, and need more flexible norms." -- Katherine Franke

While same sex marriage can do great things for some couples, it also stands to obliterate the different forms of familial and other relational bonds that queers have learned to form. What is the cost of forgoing our queerness in the quest for equality?

Truly Offensive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:27:00 +0000

As a general rule, I don't talk about Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum (or Sarah Palin for that matter). None of these individuals are serious contenders for the Republican nomination given their extreme viewpoints and stances. They are odious individuals who don't deserve any kind of attention. But Bachmann and Santorum have sunk to new lows by signing the Family Leader (an Iowa based conservative organization) "Marriage Vow." In terms of gay rights, it's all same old, same old. What is truly offensive is that the pledge asserts that Black people were better off under slavery than they are today.

The pledge contains plenty of other objectionable material, but the racist language of the pledge takes the cake. MSNBC covers the story:

Problematic Gay Rhetoric

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 02:56:00 +0000

I've been troubled lately about what I consider very problematic rhetoric that seems pervasive on at least one gay blog that I follow. About the only website on which I can manage to read comments by readers is NPR and even there the occasional ill-considered comment pops up. On almost every other internet site, comments reflect the worst of humanity: ignorance, flat-out stupidity, bigotry, prejudices, inhumanity (e.g., "I hope you die"), rudeness, ad hominem attacks, the worst logical fallacies, etc. Gay blogs are no different, but I wish they were. Some are better than others, but what concerns me is that: a) gays should know better and b) much of it seems to be echoing current activist rhetoric. To be clear, most of the problematic language and though I've read comes from gay males and white gay males at that. Men of color, lesbians, and transfolk seem to be considerably better in both manner and thought. Perhaps on other sites, those people are just as bad, but there seems to be something particular to white gay men (likely of a certain social class).

What follows are some of the problematic thoughts I've read and very brief thoughts about them:

An insistence on a biological determination for homosexuality (i.e., "born this way") - Gays seems to think that finding a biological reason for their sexuality is a magic cure-all for explaining how they got that way and for why we shouldn't be discriminated against legally (and, infered often, socially). See my post "Not Gaga for 'Born That Way'" for more thoughts on this, but in a nutshell, 1) no scientific evidence currently definitely proves how sexual orientation is determined; 2) a biological explanation doesn't solve anything; it still leaves us open (perhaps moreso) to designations of abnormal, diseased, impaired, deficient and capable of being "repaired"; 3) sexuality is likely more complex than biology can explain; 4) there are good, moral arguments for equality even if sexuality were fully chosen.

Comparisons of gay rights and the LGB civil rights movement to Black civil rights - Although I do wish that suffering systemic institutional oppression since the foundation of the country to modern times would sensitize more Black Americans to GLBT civil rights, this is not always the case. That said, I find it unhelpful and unproductive to compare the two movements or the oppression people face. A Black straight man suffers oppression differently than a White lesbian. One cannot say that one is more oppressed than the other; oppression works differently against these people. Straight black people do not have to content with alienation from their family, friends, or faith that homosexuality can and often does cause. White homosexuals can hide their orientation and rely on racial privilege; we have not faced centuries of systematic, institutional oppression in this country the way Black people have. Although some similarities exist between the two movements, such as rhetoric that asserted that Black people (and other racial minorities) were genetically and biologically inferior to White people, much in the way homosexuals were and still are described by anti-gay forces (so why do we rush to a biological defense?), we must be nuanced and careful about those parallels.

A subtle, yet clear strain of sissyphobia - This is most often manifested rather veiled; it's not really acceptable to bash our effiminate brothers, but you often see comments such as "I'm a man who likes men" or the calling of effeminate politicians and religious foes "queens," "closet cases" and such. Even gay men assume that a effeminiate man must be gay. If he's anti-gay, it seems safe to besmirch him with epitheths we would otherwise object to from others.

Transphobia - Some gay men are openly hostile to transmen and women; others object more theoretically to destablizations of strict gender roles. Again, "I like my men men" often crops up here; undoing gender somehow threatens the erotic life of some gay men. Some gay men simply fail or don't want to understand how gender operates in the lives of others (or their own).

A hatred and contempt for all religion - Atheism rules the day and those with any form of faith are often derided as being weak minded. Even agnostics may be subjected to the withering criticism as being weak and indecisive. All people of faith are lumped together with those who use religion as an anti-gay platform. People of any faith should be ridiculed and mocked, regardless of their actual stance on any issue or how they act on those issues. Although this is one of the more understandable stances taken given how much hurt and pain religion has caused many, many gay people, the failure to distinguish among different traditions, denominations, and individuals commits the same violence done to us in the name of religion.

A contempt and/or dismissal of non-metropolitan areas and/or the gays who live in them - Southerners and Midwesterners in particular earn the scorn of some of the gays of New York, San Francisco, Toronto and Miami who frequent these blogs. People who live outside of gay meccas are generally considered ignorant conservative hicks who all hate gays. Gays who live in these areas are insane for doing so and deserve whatever treatment they get. Nevermind the violence committed and ignorant rhetoric being spewed against gays in those states and cities; these other areas are the hotbeds of gay hate.

"They deserve it" - The evil rhetoric of many anti-gay bigots should be matched with equally foul language and invective. Why should we strive for some more articulate or meaningful response? Just hit them back with their own language. While it's hard to argue against the catharsis this can provide or that people and organizations definitely need to be exposed for their lies, half-truths, and bigotry, name-calling only achieves the first. Although I'd like to argue morally for not resorting to such tactics, many see it as the moral equivalent, sometimes as an imperative. Practically, however, doing so only serves to make us look inarticulate, as nasty as our opponents, and does nothing to stop the name calling. In the documentary Eye of the Storm, educator Jane Elliot asks one of her students why he punched a classmate for calling him names. Elliot asks the student "Did it help? Did it stop him? Did it make you feel better inside?" The student affirms silently that it did none of these things. I'd suggest that punching back rhetorically is the same; it may feel better in the moment, but likely does not make us (feel like) better people. (See here at the 6:39 mark for the conversation I'm referencing.)

An intense and caustic criticism of individuals who step outside of current assimilationist rhetoric - Suggest that gay marriage should not be the pressing issue, that perhaps we can muster better than name calling and insults as retorts to adversaries and critics, that we can hold a higher standard and not sink to the level of homophobes, that we could be more inclusive of truly queer folk, that we may not be born gay, and/or that Dan Savage is not the best thing since sliced bread and you will get your head handed to you.

The Same Old Stuff PLUS Michigan AFA: Gays are employment risks

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:59:00 +0000

I don't usually post much from the likes of the AFA (American Family Association) or its ilk (e.g., the Traditional Values Coalition, Family Research Council, Exodus International, Catholic League, National Organization for Marriage); the rhetoric is pretty much the same regardless of the organization or event to which these groups respond.

To whit, on any given subject related to gays and lesbians you will hear any mixture of the following, in no particular order:
A) Homosexuality is a disease /sickness
B) Homosexuality results in mental and/or physical disease
C) Homosexuality is sinful /against God's will (seemingly with extra sin)
D) In accordance to B and/or C, a homosexual can choose to no longer be homosexual
E) Homosexuality undermines traditional / Biblical values
F)Homosexual unions (the most conservative and traditional thing homosexuals could do) threaten traditional / Biblical families (by this they refer to one man and woman, and almost never that man's concubines, other wives, or the woman's father who sold her - also Biblical) and/or seek to redefine marriage (to which I say one can only hope)
G) Acceptance of homosexuals (especially homosexual unions) will lead to acceptance of bestiality, polygamy, and/or pederasty
H) Homosexuals seeks to recruit and/or indoctrinate children
I) Homosexuals sexually molest children
J) Homosexuals rights will lead to religious persecution (of Christians, rarely is any other faith tradition mentioned)
K) Related, homosexuals will force their beliefs and values on everyone, leading to legal prosecution of those who disagree
L) Homosexuality is a lifestyle
M) Homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, usually involving multiple sexual partners and/or drug use
N) Homosexuality engage in deviant sexual behaviors (although rarely specific, the general use of this trope implies sexual behavior well above and beyond simple same-sex acts of oral, vaginal, or anal sex)
O) A cabal of homosexual activists are promoting a gay agenda (no need to get specific unless tied to one of these others)
P) Saying any or all of these things does not make one bigoted or hateful
Q) All of the above

I've probably left a few out, but these are the main talking points, repeated ad infinitum. Although some bloggers seem to reveal in posting each and every lastest iteration these hate mongers spew, I'm grown rather numb to it. It's the same thing, over and over again. While there may be some value in demonstrating just how frequently and copiously these organizations and their representatives (and other individuals, religious and political, copying these assertions), I usually skip them. It's actually gotten rather boring and predictable. The terms of the debate haven't changed for a good couple of decades (although Mark Jordan's Recruiting Young Love details the longer evolution of this rhetoric)
and I'm tired of reading it. I certainly can't be bothered to waste emotional energy on any of it.
Usually, however, you do not see these arguments being applied to suggest that gays and lesbians should be denied employment. Although it's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone for being gay and lesbian (in the private sector particularly) in most states, rarely do you see individuals or organizations actively speak out agains hiring gay and lesbians. Gary Glenn, the head of the Michigan AFA, has no such hesitation. In an interview with right wing extremist Linda Harvey, Glenn argues for the inherent inferiority of gays and lesbians:

What ridiculous folly to suggest that only those individuals who engage in homosexual behavior given all of its severe medical consequences constitute the best and the brightest. It’s not really bright to engage in behavior that puts you at dramatically higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse and AIDS and cancer and hepatitis, and according to various sources, premature death. So to suggest that engaging in that type of behavior defines someone as the best and brightest, which seems to be the line coming out of corporate America, is just ridiculous.

Harvey agrees, noting, "You’re right. And higher rates of domestic violence and unstable relationships [ed: not so much]. I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk, I just wouldn’t."

For all the ranting about the current (imagined) and (to them) likely persecutions of Christians and homophobes should gay rights advance in America, this is the real face of extremism and persecution. These individuals would discourage and deny basic employment to gays and lesbians in their perfect theocratic world. This is far more concering and threatening than opponents to gay marriage.

June Zombiepaloozapocolypse

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 04:41:00 +0000

Inspired by watching AMC's excellent Walking Dead series and my love for George Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968), I dedicated June to watching major (and often influential) works of zombie film:
Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Day of the Dead (the third of his zombie trilogy- 1985),
and Land of the Dead (his fourth movie - 2005)
Return of the Living Dead (1985- of which I had seen portions of years ago)
28 Days Later (2002)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Zombieland (2009)

Shaun and Zombielands are more affectionate, comedic takes on zombie films than anything, although it's worth noting that Shaun does this extremely well and is a very funny movie, taking full advantage of zombie film conventions and turning them on their head in a clever way. Zombieland starts out promising, particularly with it's "rules" for surviving zombie attacks, but after a stop at certain comedic icon's Hollywood mansion, fades into a rather by the numbers and not so funny zombie movie. It never fully capitalizes on the fun premise of a zombie rulebook and throws its own film logic on its head at the end, unfortunately. Also, the promise of a zombie-infested Disneyland type amusement park is woefully under-delivered.

Romero's zombie trilogy (Night, Dawn, and Day) more or less builds on itself and are best known for their social commentary. Although Dawn seems to garner the most praise, I find the film's commentary far too obvious and blunt, although at its time perhaps it was less so. It's also the least frightening of the three and tends towards a more comedic approach. The characters are very likeable and it's not clear who will and will not die. This is a facet of zombie films (and not just Romero's) that I enjoy over other horror films; rarely is it obvious from some character flaw or personality who will bite the dust. Teens having sex or nubile young co-eds will most likely get the axe from Freddy, Jason, or Michael, but, in a zombie film, anyone might survive or die. Also, non-white characters tend to be as heroic and as likely to survive as white ones; zombie films tend to be very equal opportunity. Still, in Dawn, people do stupid things (sometimes incredibly and mind-bogglingly stupid) often for really no good reason and this detracts from the otherwise enjoyable movie.

Although Night is my favorite for hands-down creepy and scary, Day is his most nuanced and interesting film. Day tends to get a bad rap among reviewers, but Day asks important questions about who is good and who is evil (and what constitutes evil). Day, interestingly, creates seeming villians from obnoxious, racist, sexist, stupid military types who seem to threaten the noble scientists trying to find relief from the zombie plague. The head scientist seems kind and intelligent, if a bit absent minded and idealistic. Still, despite their problematic character traits, the soldiers are proven correct in putting a stop to what turns out to be bizarre experiments and the mutilation of dead soldiers' corpses (not to mention using them to feed zombies). The head scientist fails to see his wrong-doing; he's simply being utilitarian. The film critiques both the military as well as the scientific establishments. Day also differs by making the zombies sympathetic; it's easy to feel sorry for them. They never come off as evil threats.

Return of the Living Dead offers little social commentary (other than a slight critique of the military), but provides the infamous "brains" line associated so popularly with zombies as well as the first fast moving and the first thinking/speaking zombies (apparently whether zombies are better as slow, Romero types or fast, running zombies are a bit of a debate in the zombie fan community. I take no stand.). RotLD also is a great, sometimes scary, often darkly humorous 80's flick that is interesting to compare with Day given that they came out in the same year. Return zombies punish both the middle-class establishment, the police, and young adult subculturists. Return does suggest a critique of shallowness (the punk leader ironically (yet obliviously) proclaims his leather and chain clothing is a statement, not just a costume; he doesn't make it out) but this criticism is neither as strong nor as nuanced as those of Day.

Land has an interesting premise ripe for social critique. The ultra rich have barricaded themselves into a city skyscraper while the rest of society lives in grubby conditions around and outside the building, supporting the wealthy elite. Of course, it all comes crashing down when zombies led by a Black gas station attendant invade. Unfortunately, this is the extent to which any critique is carried out - this obvious analogy. Roger Ebert suggested that it would be fascinating to get to know the residents in the tower and their thinking and perspective, but we never do. Instead, we are left with a rather boring and predictable story even though this has Romero's best special effects (a terrible and laughable scene of glass "shattering" notwithstanding).

Dawn suggested that zombies (a word Romero never uses) appeared because Hell no longer has any room; Return attributes zombies to bio-chemical warfare agents; 28 Days Later will attribute scientifically created and blood-born viruses. Zombies are never consistently one thing; zombies stand in for any number of social ills or are themselves just blind agents of destruction, suggesting that humankind needs no reason or motive to destroy itself. It just will. Dawn explicitly draws the analogy (and then proceeds to beat the audience over the head with it, although often humorously) that we are already waking zombies in the face of consumerism and capitalism. All of the Romero movies make clear that other human beings are the real monsters.

28 Days zombies are easily seen as any virus (smallpox, avian flu, or hoof/mouth disease) but given its specifically blood borne transmission (and the genesis of the movie disease), HIV springs to mind. Appropriately, anyone stands to be infected (although unfortunately 28 Days zombies are raving mad sprinters who seem truly evil and insatiable). Still, ultimately, 28 Days, like Romero's films, emphasize man's inhumanity to man; people are more monsterous than the monsters.

28 Days critiques science, the military, and, briefly, religion. I don't remember much said about it at the time, but its worth noting that our protagonist is first accosted by a priest after entering a church filled with zombies. None too sublte that, I think. Although it picks up on various previous zombie movies (Day and Return, specifically) for inspiration, it's an excellent film more about sacrifice and compassion. It is at times spectacularly dark and uplifting. Hope and hopelessness are nicely managed in the film.

Which brings us up to Walking Dead, which seems to borrow heavily from 28 Days and Romero. Non-whites and women tend to fare less well in the series than in zombie movies, which is my major complaint. That said, there are strong Black and Asian characters, and, depending on how closely it stays to the comic, more may be on the way. Like its better cinematic inspirations, Walking Dead is more about the people surviving in the world and their relationships. Zombies are few and far between, making appearances special and truly frightening. Walking Dead seems to promise a look at a world of complete anarchy; the government is much more collapsed and civilization is far more ruined than in most zombie narratives. The comic asks strong questions about the morality of the law, but the series has not quite yet reached those stories and may not, as it's taken some very different paths. Currently zombies are the biggest threat; will the living replace them?

Separated at Birth

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:10:00 +0000

Scott H. Reiniger (Dawn of the Dead)

Brad Bird (Iron Giant)

Why I'm Not Gaga over "Born This Way"

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 02:42:00 +0000

Perhaps it's fitting that the .99 sale of Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" album on Amazon crashed their servers, or at least slowed them down. It's an apt metaphor for the way "born this way" rhetoric has crashed, or at least slowed down, gay and lesbian liberationist politics.

It's tempting to simply quote Eve Sedgwick and Michael Warner on this topic and leave it at that: they said it first and best. A politic built on an essentialistic conceptualization of sexual orientation (that is, the idea that one's sexual orientation is natural, established pre-self-awareness, and stable and unchanging) does not guarantee one success and cannot be certain to result in the type of outcomes that those employing it certainly seek to achieve. Of course, neither can one build on a social construction theory of sexuality. Neither argument guarantees that rights will be granted or that others will conceed on moral or rational grounds.

Sedgwick went on to say that, even should some biological basis be found for sexual orientation, nobody is asking "how DO you raise up a wonderful little queer? My house needs a total do-over." All the discourse about developing sexuality in children and teenagers focuses on how to avoid raising a kid gay/lesbian or remains completely silent. Nobody, even today, seeks to raise a gay kid. Finding a biological cause would most likely lead to people seeking to prevent having gay kids rather than new levels of acceptance for gay people. Many people consider race biological (it isn't), but still discriminate, oppress, and marginalize people of races different than their own.

I personally find it a bit distasteful that my desires and affections boil down to some pre-coded, genetic mish-mash. If all I am in a biological stew in a meat-sack that acts on some hormonal or electric cerebal impulse, well, I'm not sure I want that either. I prefer to think of myself as having a bit more spirit, soul, unconciousness, internality, agency, mind, or whatever term you prefer in relation to whom I desire and with whom I share affection, or even love, with. If I'm just a highly evolved amoeba when it comes to my sexuality, why, where's the fun in that? Doesn't there seem to be a bit more to it than that?

Yet, what does science tell us about our sexual inclinations, orientation, predilictions, preferences, what have you? Dr. Francis Collins, noted geneticist, observes that:

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable

Other studies speculate that gay men and women may have similar brain structures, which then may lead to gay men processing scents differently from straight men, and that testoterone levels in the womb may be correlated with sexual orientation. Yet even the researcher of the testosternoe study, Marc Breedlove (I kid you not), notes:

There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay... I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological factors that make up sexual preference.

None of these are definitive nor conclusive evidence that one's, or at least everyone's, sexuality is biologically derived. They suggest that sometimes biological factors may play a part in some peoples' sexuality, partially. Finding a biological cause will likely never happen because sexuality is more fluid and complex than those who force a false hetero/homo binary on us would have us believe. Even people who are primarily or exculsively hetero- or homo- in their sexual desire and/or practices experience and engage in a panoply of experiences that one cannot ever be certain of what exact sexual activity is being correlated with a biological precursor.

So, what then constitutes sexual desire, sexuality, and affection? (I continue to draw a distinction between affection and sexuality because love and sex can and often are two different emotions/experiences, although they are often intertwined and both are a form of desire.) If I am not biologically gay/lesbian, can I change my sexuality, am I demonstrating a preference rather than an orientation?

In short, I don't know and I suspect few of us do. The factors that influence and constitute my sexuality are likely various, complex, and beyond my ability to process them all. (Sexual abuse, trauma, and/or parental roles are NOT among these factors, I can say for certain.) Deriving clear causation from any one factor, or even combination of factors, is fraught with incredible difficulty and problems.
Accordingly, no, I cannot no more change my sexual desires than any other individual can. I can certainly choose to not act on them or act against them or act in ways that afford me lesser pleasure than I desire. For instance, I have enjoyed pleasurable sexual and emotional experiences with women. However, I overwhelmingly prefer and enjoy sex with men and am emotionally attracted to other men. I cannot describe the difference except to say that there is a chasm of difference between the two. Conceivably, I could again have a pleasurable sexual experience with a woman, but it would in no way be as fulfilling as it is with a man nor would the same type of attraction. I feel like I can be empathetic and show affection for/with women, but I can only fall in love with a man.

So, sexuality is not fully and freely chosen either. Something operates "behind the scenes" as it were (Freud's notion of the unconcious seems a reasonable term to use here) that is beyond my (or any of our) control to alter in any substantial way. Even the ex-gay ministries no longer purport to change orientation, but rather to alter behavior. Desire, even these ministries will tell you, does not change. One will always "struggle" with homosexuality, per these organizations. (They also tend to conflate gender expression - masculinity and femininity - with sexuality.) I will take a moment here to note that all of the major professional psychological associations denounce so-called "reparative" therapy as harmful.

Zombie Marriage will be totally okay though.

Even if sexuality were freely chosen, why would that preclude equal rights for non-heterosexual individuals? Religion is afforded many civil rights and it is certainly chosen. Why can we not have a society that supports protecting and bestowing civil rights on individuals who chose to engage in ethical, consenting sexual relationships that do no harm? The slippery slope argument, i.e., accepting non-heterosexuals leads to accepting pedorasty and bestiality, is fallacious. These are non-consenual and abusive forms of sexual activity and do not need to be and neither should be acceptable. Although choice of sexual desire is a hypothehtical, it is nonetheless relevant to the the discussion, particularly if anti-gay forces seek to debate on these terms.

These arguments are likely too complex in everyday conversation with those mimicking the rhetoric they've heard from religious and political leaders. In initial conversations, a simple "when did you choose to be heterosexual?" is a good conversation starter. Sometimes a follow-up "do you think you can quit your sinful heterosexual lifestyle and convert to a homosexual one?" can provide some additional food for thought. These questions neither pre-suppose a cause of sexuality, but rather speak to the difficulty in simply desiring or acting on different desires or adopting a different sexuality.

Still, in more meaningful and thoughtful debate, gay activists need to seriously consider these questions. "Born this way" is not only necessarily accurate, but is not even an expedient political argument. In fact, "born this way" politics has only served to creat a politics that desparately wants to portray non-heterosexuals as "just like you." Hell, I'm not just like you and I thank God for it. (Okay, in most ways I am; but others aren't and they need protecting too.) I really despise the type of queer domesticity that current gay politics and activism seeks to portray and promote, even as my life more or less embodies it. "Born this way" has led to a white, middle- to upper-class gay politic that ignores trans people and queers whose lives don't reflect (by choice or otherwise) this mimicry of heterosexual life.

Gag.

Being queer means an opportunity to create new ways of being, kinship, living, relationships, and institutions. But the "born this way" mentality destroys that possibility by aping heterosexual culture in a chance to be accepted. I see this as a "shuck and jive" move that I want no part of: I'm queer, I don't know why I'm here, but I am, and I demand acceptance and equal rights.

Oh, and for the record, Gaga totally ripped off Madonna on this one.