My Three Dollars Worth

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 and 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.

Goldie Taylor on "how far we have not come"

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:15:00 +0000

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

The Erasure of Subjectivity in Green Eggs and Ham

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:47:00 +0000

Unknown to many, Theodore Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, wrote a thesis promoting the erasure of borderland subjectivities of those living outside the matrix of cultural intelligibility. One should note that Geisel's self-bestowed title betrays his compliance in a discourse of medicalization and psychiatry. Seuss's title operates within the realm of bio-power to promote his narratives as truth and to reify the status of his morality tales within the dominant cultural discourse. Geisel's title calls to us to take his lessons authoritatively.

In Green Eggs, the nameless narrator clearly represents those not named, those not existing within the matrix of cultural intelligibility. The narrator exists as a liminal character of unknown gender; clearly Green Eggs is an antecedent text for Written on the Body. The dominant culture represented by Sam (clearly a reference to “Uncle Sam," i.e., American society) acts as Althusser’s ideology cop, hailing the narrator to perform in a manner that meets cultural standards. Sam offers eggs, signifying heterosexual reproduction and ham, a food choice gesturing towards Christian identity by foreclosing Jewish and Muslim membership. This is the food of bio-power: the only life worth sustaining by (Uncle) Sam is the performance of a heterosexual Christian identity. Sam threatens the narrator unceassingly: will the narrator take the food with a "house" or a "mouse"? With a "box" or a "fox"? In a "car" or a "tree"? In other words, the narrator compliance will be rewarded with consumer goods produced by the capitalistic nation-state (symbolized by the color green, the color of money) or face homelessness and the dangers of nature. The narrator resists until the end, realizing that existing outside of the cultural matrix and refusing to meet the approving gaze of the reader means certain annihilation and permanent erasure.

The Best "It Gets Better"

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:11:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I blogged my critique of the "It Gets Better" project. As well intentioned as it is, many of the stories reinforce some kind of happiness script rooted in heterosexual ideas of happiness. It also stands to lose ground long term in favor of some short term gain. That's a valid ethical choice, but I'm not sure we want to leave people who see it isn't getting better out to hang, perhaps literally, because they then assume that it's their fault that their life hasn't gotten better.

So, imagine my joy to be directed to this video, which I think better says it. Gabrielle Rivera explains why it might not get better but we do get stronger. (She is included in Savage's written compilation, but, unfortunately, he dismisses her contribution as just another way of say "it get's better." Thanks for not listening to what she's saying at all, Dan.)

Not so Pretty in Pink

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:15:00 +0000

Sherri Shepard has said some pretty stupid things previously (e.g., not knowing if the earth was round or not or saying that nobody came before Christians), so it's pretty easy to disregard her comments. Although Shepard might be easy to dismiss, based on the audience reaction alone, clearly others share her insitence that makeup or nail polish are inappropriate for male children because those things are for "mommies."

Of course, concerned conservative psychiatrist, Fox news personality and Glen Beck friend Keith Ablow is concerned:

Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” [my word choice] is not known.

Ablow continues to be concerned about how pink nail polish on little boys endangers the future of the human race!Ablow might benefit from Judith Butler's discussion of how at least one attempt to socialize gender didn't find much success.

It doesn't matter if being gay or transgendered is a choice or not (I'd say it's not, for the record, but but neither is it somehow an essentialized characteristic), but how in the world is nail polish or the color pink going to influence that? They are not somehow magically or naturally linked to female-ness or woman-ness. They aren't even socially constructed or linked to woman-ness any longer; it's pretty unremarkable nowadays for men to use nail polish of any color.

What is amazing, but not surprising, to me is how concerned anyone can be over such small things. Gender policing is, IMO, far more important to members of our society than regulating sexuality. Non-normative and queer sexuality is still pretty heavily policied, but I'd argue no longer as pressing of a societal concern as gender regulation still is. I personally see gender concerns underlying much homophobia and heterosexism. Heterosexual power needs gender binaries to mainstain itself. Therefore, stupid shit like pink nail polish becomes of monumental concern and weaponized.

Why does something so seemingly insignificant become such a potent weapon? I'd argue that it's because we can't really decide what constitutes gender (although we dare not admit this question lurking in the back of our minds), so some cling to very surface and seemingly inconsequential markers: the color pink (or blue), for example. We even assign colors to uncertainty of infant gender; yellow or certain shades of green are often used when preparing for either gender. We still mark gender in uncertainty.

Color coding and other more obvious and prominent markers help us feel more secure about who is a man and who is a woman even when those markers are ambiguous. For instance, Shephard and the audience (or parts of it) identify makeup as for women (actually, for "mommies," but I'll forgo a discussion of the necessity of reproduction in the construction of womanhood for now). Perhaps others would agree that makeup is something only women wear, except for the fact that men do wear certain kinds of makeup. I've known straight men to wear concealer to hide a blemish or clear nail polish for a variety of reasons. Men use hair products to style their hair, isn't this a kind of makeup also? As a brief aside, when does a worn scent become perfume and when is it cologne?

Our need for markers is needed because we really don't have a good sense of whether gender relates to genitals, gonads, chromosomes, feelings, bodily movements or some other criteria. Obviously most of these identifiers of gender are normally hidden from view, so society requires visible markers. Why? Probably in part because we want to make sure our desires line up with what society tells us are proper desires. If I'm a man who considers himself attracted to women and I then desire someone I discover is anatomically a man, then I stand to be implicated as a freak, immoral, degenerate, perverted, or otherwise outside the norm. Also, many theorists have pointed out how men regulate how women should perform in public spaces, so, clearly men need clear markers of who is a woman.

Although conservatives argue that gender and sexuality are fixed identities bestowed by a Creator, they typically fret a lot about threats to these supposedly stable aspects of our lives. Gender is, rather, as Butler says, "a form of social power" used to discpline, control, and constrain bodies. And in this fight, any weapon will do, even if it's just pink nail polish.

Jon Stewart offers not only a humorous spin on this gender policing, but does a little gender deconstruction of his own "weapon" (see at the end).

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

The Construction of Happiness in "It Gets Better" (Brief Essay)

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:53:00 +0000

In response to a rash of highly publicized suicides of lesbian and gay youth, columnist Dan Savage initiated the "It Gets Better Project" (www.itgetsbetter.org) in September, 2010. According to the website, since its inception, various individuals, including celebrities and politicians contributed over 10,000 videos. The laudable purpose and aim of the project is to provide hope to despondent gay and lesbian youth. Although many have lambasted critics of the program (such as gay blogger Joe Jervis’s denunciation of queer theoretical critiques as “predictable,” “over-intellectualizing,” and “navel gazing” ), to exempt this very well-meaning program from analysis is to willfully ignore the ways in which the project works against its own aims. As Sedgwick says, “in the vicinity of the closet, even what counts as a speech act is problematized” (p. 3).

The content of the videos tend to vary somewhat depending on the contributor, so for the purposes of this brief analysis, I focus on Savage’s and his partner’s original video. The better future that Savage offers is an intact family, with an emphasis on fulfillment through the addition of a child, “the promise of the child becomes the promise of happiness” (Ahmed, p 113). Happiness is the “reproduction of happy heterosexuality” (p. 90). Thus, the failure to enunciate any alternate, queer forms of love or happiness becomes one of the “many silences” (Sedgwick, p. 3) and becomes a powerful reification of heterosexual happiness scripts. In addition to the silence that denies queer love, the videos act as a confessional space where queers get to perform their coming out. Invoking Foucault, one may question: for many of the contributors, in addition to Savage, for whom does the confession provide happiness? Perhaps rather than the audience, the confessor derives his (or her) pleasure from the act of confessing queerness. Also, to what extent does the video serve to provide hope versus providing a space for the confessor(s) to establish him/herself with the societal structure, to perform acceptance? Is hope possible when the potential site of liberation is placed within the very structures that oppress or fail to prevent oppression? At the very least, Savage fails to “trouble…conventional ideas of what it means to have a good life” (Ahmed, p. 115) or to account for a better life that includes unhappiness, given that “happiness tends to come with rather straight conditions” (p. 100).

Works Cited:
Ahmed, S. "Unhappy Queers" in The Promise of Happiness.
Foucault, M. The History of Sexuality Vol 1.
Sedgwick, E. K. Epistemology of the Closet.

LGBT History Month: A look at gay rights - Part I - through 1989.

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:47:00 +0000

Although homophobia and heterosexism is persistent, pervasive and not going anywhere anytime soon, strides in gay and lesbian rights are being made (not so much for trans-rights). Here is a look at some gains over the years, although certainly not all of them. Since oppositional forces to sometimes help spur positive change, I've noted some of the more infamous events. My source is Rachel Kranz and Tim Cusick's Library in a Book: Gay Rights (2000). Almost all wording is directly quoted or paraphrased. Bracketed text is my own words.

1924: The first US gay rights group, the Society for Human Rights is founded in Chicago, but soon disbanded when the wife of a member reports the group to police.

1948: Kinsey puts out that famous 10% number in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

1950-1954: The McCarthy witchunts to ferret out homosexuals in the government, military and other areas. Thousands of men and women lose their jobs.

1951: The Mattachine Society is founded in Los Angeles.

1955: The first US lesbian organization, Daughters of Bilitis (DOB) is founded in San Francisco by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. In 2004, Del and Phyllis become the first same-sex couple to have their marriage recognized by a government entity.

1961: Illinois becomes the first state to decriminlaize private homosexual acts between consenting adults.

1964: The Socity for Individual Rights (SIR) is founded in San Francisco.

1965: The first gay rights protest in US history occurs when seven gay men and three lesbians picket the White House. It goes largely unnoticed due to the 20,000 anti-war protestors gathered that same day at the Washington Monument.

1968: The Metropolitan Community Church is founded by Rev. Troy Perry.

1969: June 27th: Judy Garland's funeral coincides with the riots at the Stonewall Inn. The gay civil rights movement begins in full force.

1970: The Lutheran Church opposes state sodomy laws and supports anti-discrimination legislation for gay men and lesbians.

June 28th: The Christopher Street Liberation Day march commemorates the Stonewall riots.

1971: NOW adopts a policy making the oppression of lesbians "a legitimate concern for feminism."
Idaho repeals then reinstates sodomy laws, making homosexual acts a felony.

1972: East Lansing, Michigan adpots the first ordinance outlwaing discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

1973: The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

Lambda Legal is founded in New York City.

Rubyfruit Jungle is published.

1974: Bella Abzug introduces the first federal Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Bill.

Combahee River Collective holds its first meeting in Roxbury, Massachusetts.

1976: The US Supreme Court upholds the sodomy laws of the State of Virigina.

1977: Dade County, Florida passes an ordinace forbidding discrimination based on sexual identity. Anita Bryant, former beauty queen and orange juice spokesperson, launches a campaign that results in the repeal of the ordinance. The anti-gay rights movement begins in full force. [I remind readers here of Ms. Bryant's eminent qualifications.]

Harvey Milk wins a seat on the San Francisco board of supervisors, becoming the first openly gay person to be elected to the government of a large US city.

1978: The Briggs Initiative, which would have allowed gay and lesbian teachers or any teacher who referred positively to homosexuals to be fired, is defeated.

San Francisco has the largest Gay Pride parade in history - 250,000 to 300,000 marchers, parttly in response to the Briggs Initiative.

Harvey Milk is killed by Dan White.

1979: The Moral Majority is founded by Jerry Falwell.

Stephen M. Lachs becomes the nations's first openly gay judge in California.

Dan White is convicted of manslaughter, enraging San Francisco's gay population and the White Night riots erupt. Dan White will be released form jail in 1985 and commit suicide.

The first national gay and lesbian civil rights march on Washington draws more than 100,000 participants.

1980: The Human Rights Campaign is founded. [For all the good the classist lapdogs do now.]

1981: The CDC reports a new disease it calls GRIDS (gay-related immune deficiency), that later becomes known as AIDS. [Many papers report about the "gay cancer" spreading.]

Larry Kramer and other activists form the Gay Men's Health Crisis, the first group to respond to AIDS.

The "Family Protection Act" is introduced, which would deny Social Security, welfare, and veterans' benefits to gay people or those who propose that homosexuality is acceptable.

1982: Wisconsin has the first statewide gay and lesbian civil rights bill go into effect.

Philidelphia establishes the first high school for gays and lesbians. In 1985, New York City establishes the Harvey Milk School for gays and lesbians.

1984: The virus causing AIDS is discovered by scientists at the Pasteur Institute in France.

Berkeley, California becomes the first city to extend domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian employees.

Wigstock holds its first festival.

1985: New York City passes a gay rights bill fourteen years after its introduction.

1986: The Supreme Court upholds the right of states to make laws prohibiting sodomy and other private sexual acts between consenting adults in Bowers v. Hardwick.

1987: Barney Frank becomes the first congressman to voluntarily announce he is gay.

ACT UP shuts down Wall Street, protesting the cost of AIDS drugs. ACT UP introduces a more militant approach to AIDS and gay rights activism.

Almost 650,000 lesbians and gay men participate in the 2nd March on Washington, which has the first display of the Names Project quilt.

1988: The District of Columbia passes a gay rights ordinance, but Congress votes to deny funding to the district unless the ordinance is revoked.

1989: [In Cincinnati, the city art museum is indicted and prosecuted for violating obscenity laws in its Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit which features photograph potraits of men in sadomasochistic and homoerotic poses and activities and some nude photos of children. In 1990, the museum director and staff will be found not to have violated obscenity laws by a jury, but this incident allows Jesse Helms to spearhead an attack on the NEA, which has chilling effects on arts funding.]

A New York Court of Appeals rules that a gay male couple can be considered a "family" where housing rules are concerned, allowing a surviving spouse to continue to enjoy his partner's lease.

The San Francisco City College establishes the first university department of lesbian and gay studies in the US.

Part II: 1990-2000 coming soon!

Homophobia

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:53:00 +0000

With the recent spat of suicides and bullying incidents that have been focused on or associated with gay or gay-identified individuals, I've had the opportunity to engage in a tremendous amount of discussion about homophobia. And, not surprisingly, there are different perspectives and understanding of what homophobia is, what is looks like, how pervasive it is, and what the effects of homophobia are. Certainly a discussion that covers all of these bases well would constitute volumes and is well beyond my scope. However, I would like to briefly describe my perspective and understanding.

Informing my understanding of homophobia is Dr. Beverly Tatum's definition of racism in her seminal work "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" Tatum (1997) first distinguishes between racism and prejudice. For Tatum, racism is "a system of advantage based on race" (p. 7). It goes beyond personal prejudices, "personal ideology" in Tatum's words; rather it is "a system involving cultural messages and institutional policies and practices as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals" (p. 7). Even when individual people in the dominant group (white or heterosexual) aren't in positions of power or actively act against the interests of black or gay people, they still benefit from the systematic advantages for their group.

Tatum cites Peggy McIntosh's well-known article "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" (p. 8) wherein McIntosh details the advantages to being white in every day life. At minimum, such advantages include the ability to be around people like you at almost any time, to speak with authority and not be questioned by people sharing that identity, being certain that unfavorable institutional practices or decisions by people in authority aren't made because of my identity, no need to question if any negative interactions were because of that identity, and so on. Oppression does not have to be overt and/or hostile - it does not have to be prejudicially based - to effect its force.

Tatum makes note that this definition is "antithetical to traditional notions of an American meritocracy" (p. 9). While we may not like to bust the myth that all men are created equal, "notions of power or privilege" must be addressed (p. 9). Tatum also interrogates the interests of those who resist such a definition of racism (and by implication all "isms") : by not understanding "whose interests are served by a 'prejudice only' definition of racism,...the system of advantage is perpetuatued" (p. 9). She later distinguishes between passive and active racism: failure to interrupt a racist joke would be an example of passive racism while telling such a joke would be an active form (p. 13).

Although not the sum of her arguments, I will finish highlighting Tatum's definition with her caveat: "It is important to acknowledge that while all Whites benefit from racism, they do not all benefit equally. Other factors, such as socio-economic status, gender, age, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, mental and physical ability, also play a role in our access to social influence and power" (p. 12).

So, using Tatum's definition, I define heterosexism as systematic advantage based on sexuality or sexual orientation. Homophobia, for me, is the fear or hatred of non-heterosexual people or the philosophy that such people are morally corrupt or psychologically abberant. Homophobia, in my mind, informs heterosexism in almost every instance and is the larger problem.

There are people who may be heterosexist without being, or meaning to be, homophobic. Non-homophobic heterosexism may show itself in such ways:

Asking if you have a significant other (this is both nosey and heterosexist)
Assuming your significant other is the opposite sex of you
Social events that presume only opposite sex couples will attend
Marketing that targets couples and only show opposite sex couples
The ability to find a community or group of straight people anywhere at almost any time
The ability to see representations in any form of media of (well adjusted) heterosexual people (in stable, healthy relationship or sexual active in a socially acceptable way, or...)
Ability to enter a locker room and not have others presume you're interested in their bodies
The ability to easily find, read, hear or otherwise access the history and contributions of heterosexuals
Forms with forced choices such as "married, single, divorced" that don't recognize the validity or existence of different forms of same-sex relationships might be non-homophobic
Some individuals who say "that's so gay" (although the phrase is rooted in homophobia, some may say it in ignorance of the implication)

And so on...

Listing non-homophobic heterosexist manifestations is actually pretty difficult, because so few of them exist. Even the last two examples must come with the caveat that it is difficult, if not impossible to tell, if they are products of homophobia or simply a heterosexist society. I will briefly mention that a specific brand of homophobia impacts straight-identified men as well: sissyphobia. This is a more direct expression of the misogyny that underlines homophobia. A fear, hatred, or dislike of men who have effeminate characteristics or personalities betrays the hatred of women that is the basis for homophobia. I heard a rabbi once say that "homophobia is a room in the greater house of misogyny" and I firmly believe this.

I've been inclined in my discussions to use blatant examples of the pervasiveness of homophobia, but homophobia manifests itself in the smallest of interactions and assumptions, just as heterosexism does. Still the homophobic, active oppression of gays and lesbians is a major force in society today.

Homophobia manifest itself in some obvious ways; here are just a few:

National and global religious leaders frequently make speeches regarding the evils of homosexuality.
National and global religious leaders often talk about some perceived agenda homosexuals persue to destroy traditional societal institutions and roles.
National, locals (and sometimes global) politicians claim that homosexuals are unfit for certain jobs, especially those around children.
National and local politicians and national and local religious leaders and organizations advocate and advance anti-gay legislation, including opposing legislation that would protect homosexuals from being fired and denied housing or medical care because of their sexual orientation.
National and local politicians and national and local religious leaders and organizations oppose legislation that would allow same-sex couples hospital visitation rights or the ability for same-sex couples to make financial and health decisions for their significant others.
National and local politicians and national and local religious leaders and organizations oppose legislation that would allow same-sex couples who seek the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that a civil marriage provides to have access to the same rights and protections they enjoy.
National and local politicians and national and local religious leaders and organizations oppose legislation that would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, advancing the idea that a child in foster care or an orphanage is better off than with a loving gay or lesbian parents.
Religious and secular leaders of all levels promote the idea that homosexuals are (more likely to be) child molestors /pedophiles and/or seek to convert people, but especially children, to homosexuality.
Religious and secular leaders of all levels promote research that does not meet well-established scientific criteria or backing to advance lies and falsehoods about gays and lesbians.
Religious leaders of all levels promote that homosexuality is a sin that is worse than any other sin simply by the amount of attention they devote to it compared to all other sins.
National religious leaders have declared that homosexuals are responsible for 9/11, Katrina, and other disasters that have befallen the United States.
National and local politicians and national and local religious leaders and organizations have found legislation that would establish anti-bullying regulations because they believe such legislation would silence their abusive depicitions of homosexuals.
Gay and lesbian military service members are not allowed to express or share their feelings for their significant others or their sexual interests, unlike their heterosexual counterparts, who may do so with impunity. Debate over repeal of DADT often centers around the implicit idea that gay service men (in particular) will be sexually predatory on or inappropriate with their heterosexual peers.

I could go on, but the picture is clear and obvious to anybody who pays the least bit attention to these things. But some of these are all too easily dismissed as being uttered by clearly fringe individuals or organizations and that they don't impact the day-to-day lives of gay and lesbian people. But homophobia is more insidious and dangerous than obvious attacks on gays and lesbians.

Homophobia is deadly because on a daily basis, it causes some people to:

Lie about their lives to continue to live and/or associate with their family and/or friends.
Be thrown out on the street without money because they come out to their family when young.
Be sent against their will to ex-gay ministries or psychotherapy to "cure" their sexuality.
Be ostracized from religious and other organizations they have been members of all their life.
Be unable to find other positive representations of other gays and lesbians.
Be unable to find people in their community who will be supportive of them.
Be rejected by some family members, even if other family members are supportive.
Be rejected by some friends, even if others are supportive.
Be told that they are "okay" but can't bring their significant other around children (because it would be too hard to explain).
Be told they are loved, but are still going to hell or are sick/perverted/etc.
Be fired or not hired for jobs they are qualified for because they are gay/lesbian or appear to be.
Be unable to find someone to date or otherwise establish a romantic and/or sexual relationship.
Be unable to find someone who can understand the issues being gay or lesbian causes for them.
Dress to fit in rather than how they would prefer to dress.
Not be trusted around children.
Enter into unfulfilling opposite-sex relationships in order to "fit in" or because that it what they've been taught is ideal.
Cheat on their opposite-sex spouse because their sexual and emotional needs can't be met.
Be called names by people who disapprove of their identity.
Be assumed to be the expert of and for all gay and lesbian people.
Wonder whether disclosing they are in a same-sex relationship will result in some negative repercussion.
Wonder if publicly holding hands, hugging, kissing or other appropriate display of affection with their same-sex other will result in violence or other negative repercussion.
Prevent some people from publicly displaying affection for fear of such repercussions.
Wonder how new neighbors will react if you disclose you are gay or lesbian.
Strategize and wonder about places (states and cities) where it is safe and supportive to live as a gay or lesbian.
Speculate and keep on guard for areas where one must move into, whether it is safe or supportive or not.
Plan their career around professions that are generally accepting of gays and lesbians.
Look only for companies that will not discriminate against their sexual orientation and/or offer benefits for same-sex couples.
Wonder if other people speak negatively about them when they are not around.
Wonder if other people judge their same-sex relationship differently than heterosexual relationships.
Wonder if decisions made against them by authorities were because of their sexual orientation.
Wonder if they were pulled over by a police officer because they have a pro-gay or gay- identifying sticker on their car. (Or fearing they will be, do not put one on their car.)
Wonder if a negative interaction with another person was because of their sexual orientation.
Worry that they will burn in hell forever.

Not all gay and lesbian people experience these things, but most of us do experience some of them, to varying degrees. I have personally experienced many, if not most, of these. And certainly the list is not comprehensive or halfway complete.

As Tatum mentions, our other areas of privilege mediated the degree to which homophobia and heterosexism impacts us. An older, white, middle income, highly educated, Protestant male like me may experience any or all of those impacts, but have enough power and privilge through our other identities to deal with those, or most of those, issues. A young, Hispanic, lower middle class woman who is lesbian may experience them much more profoundly and deeply because she does not have the support systems or financial or other resources to off-set their impact. And so, she may be forced to live in a community where she must hide her true self and forego a romantic relationship in order to sustain herself and simply survive.

Regardless of one's other privileged identities, these things, big and small, to take a psychic toll. It can wash over some like a raging river or slowly wear on others, eroding them like a stream does a rock over time. Being able to be in communion with those who understand and who are supportive and loving can help counteract a lot of this, but not all. For those who do not have such connections or those who may be too young to know how to get out or lack the experience to counterbalance homophobia, it may be a sudden drowning experience.

Why we can't address only bullying; we must address homophobia

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:52:00 +0000

The tragic situation of Tyler Clementi has received special attention lately for several reasons, but I suspect mostly because he is one in a recent string of suicides with young gay or gay-perceived people who were bullied. I also think he has received particular attention because of the sensationalistic nature of how it happened In other words, people think: "it happened at a college!"; "it could happen to anybody!"; "sex was broadcast on the internet!" The believed sacred and protective bounds of the white tower have been violated; who among us might be the next victim? Why, this could even happen to straight people! Clearly, I am tempted to make a case that it receives attention despite the fact that it happened to a young gay man; other more overtly homophobic acts of bullying are receiving less attention than Tyler's case. A possible explanation is that media and its consumers believe that those were just some poor fags and I don't have to worry about them because I'm not one.

For those who are emphasizing the homophobia involved in the Rutger's case, I don't think most people are trying to make a martyr out of Tyler, but rather to use his case as one in a series of examples of how homophobia impacts people. From the facts that we know, I would say that we can't tell if the webcam broadcast was done because Tyler was having sex or because he was having sex with a man.

I think it's largely irrelevant. The act was a form of bullying and invasion of privacy. That needs to be addressed. Period. We need to quit making excuses for bullying ("boys will be boys" etc) and address the fundamental unacceptability of bullying. (For more on this particular point, see Kate Harding's excellent profanity-laced post.)
What needs to be understood, however, is how a pervasively homophobic society adds a crushingly oppressive element that results in some young people being unable to handle the bullying. Although suicide is not a rational choice, the conditions under which many of these kids are taking their lives are cruel and inhumane and they likely see no recourse, no hope for escape.

There was a study done on North Korean POWs that implicates the denial of “the emotional support that comes from interpersonal relationships by using “self-criticism” and the “withholding of all positive emotional support “(Rath, 2005). Those POW camps had the highest death rate in US military history despite the relatively little use of physical torture.

So, imagine if you can that you are a young gay person who is being bullied. You have people directly telling you that you are worthless: you are worth only abuse. Even if that abuse isn’t directly tied to your sexual orientation – you have a society where on a daily basis you receive negative messages about your worth. Politicians and religious leaders on a local, national, and global scale talk about your moral depravity – your assurance to go to hell – and that during your time on earth you aren’t worth basic civil rights (job protection, housing protection, protection from bullying) and they’ll actively fight to deny you those rights.

On top of that, you may not be able to tell family, friends, teachers, counselors, or ministers about your sexual orientation because those people believe - from the messages they’ve heard – that you’re sick. Your family might throw you out – it happens frequently – or they might try to “cure” you by forcing you to go through psychotherapy or worse, ex-gay ministries. Friends and trusted authorities may also reject you.

So, you’re isolated, with nobody to turn to, and few, if any, resources. You’re isolated, you’re being constantly criticized about your identity and your future prospects seem bleak. You are, in fact, a POW of a homophobic society. At this point, suicide could seem pretty fucking rational. You’re already in hell; why not take your chances with the next life? It could only get better, right?

Bullying in all forms and for any reason must be stopped. But homophobia is what contributes to making an irrational choice seem rational. We must not and cannot deny the power that homophobia exerts on young people not being able to endure the bullying.

Review of JLA: Crisis on Two Earths

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:36:00 +0000

Wherein I not only review a movie, I have a brief divergence on morality in comic books…

I greatly enjoyed JLA: Crisis on Two Earths. It seems very loosely based on Grant Morrison’s JLA: Earth 2. Even though the Crime Syndicate was around a long time before Morrison’s graphic novel, the movie clearly takes its cues or at least its jumping off point from that work, possibly also working in hints of Alan Moore’s lost proposal “Twilight.” The animation and colors look spectacular on Blu-Ray although the audio is quite lacking. The voice talent seemed perfectly cast to me, having not watched any DC animation in the past couple of decades I have no preconceived ideas about what the characters should sound like. James Woods in particular was standout as Owlman.

THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD

Herein I take on some of the criticisms I have seen of the film on the web.

One of those criticisms is some questionable moral decisions that Batman makes at the end. Since I tend to take any kind of movie of characters as unique takes not beholden to comic continuity or exact characterization, how Batman (or any character) may respond in a comic is not how I necessarily (within certain fairly broad frames) expect him to respond in a movie (although Final Crisis did have Batman use a gun on Darkseid, as a last option, and although it received some criticism for this, most people exonerated Batman's decision here (or perhaps, more accurately, credited Grant Morrison's creative decision, given the general good will he's banked as a writer). Still, I don't find his decisions particularly out of step with Batman. Johnny Quick is warned (and Batman's silence is not necessarily an affirmation that he _knew_ what would happen (and, indeed, how would he?) and Owlman was committing a murder/suicide. If you stop a suicide-murderer from the murder portion of their plan, is it a lack of regard for human life on the hero's part? Is it murder on the hero's part then? I have a hard time saying it is.

If anything took me out of the movie, it was how it ended in a nice, tidy package. Unlike the more sophisticated Earth 2 book that ended with the heroes being unable to change the world, this had a more Speilberg-ian happy ending. I get why it does, particulary in this medium and it works fine in the context of this film, but it was such a difference from the work that helped or partially inspire it that it took me out of an otherwise highly satisfying film experience.
I will add that I greatly enjoyed the cameos of various second and third tier DC characters in their Earth-2 incarnations, particularly the Marvel crime family, as this is what specifically reminded me of Moore’s “Twilight” proposal (as did the entire Mafioso style organization set-up).

THE SPOILERS BE ENDED

The Spectre short, which everyone is raving about, certainly gets outstanding marks for mood and its style. It’s pretty flat on plot, however. I thought, “hey this could be a real murder mystery,” but that element is not even really tackled – the audience has no opportunity to guess about who did it, why, or much less care. Still, it is stylistically captivating and definitely a cool addition.

I wish there were some commentary or a making-of of the JLA movie although the documentary on how Didio steered the current DCU into a post-9/11 age is interesting, if not for what is said about how might positively conceptualize many plot and character developments that at least much of the internet fan base has seen asmostly negative than for what the people don’t say about it – how these events drive or are driven by marketing, if thinking about comics like TV episodes is a good or bad thing, how /why/should post-9/11 comics be different from post-WW II comics, among other topics.

Johanna Carlson Draper expresses her thoughts on how the modern direction of DC comics may be attributable to “New York overraction.” Although I am hesitant to call it that, since the trauma of any and all New Yorkers regarding that event must be huge compared to what any of us experienced, I do think that Didio has let his own shock impact how he has steered the comics. Regardless, I personally disagree with how 9/11 makes us think about heroes. If anything, 9/11 showed us that heroes don’t have to be mythic creatures who do things that the rest of us cannot. Heroes are (in reality) and can be everyday people do extraordinary things. 9/11 humanized heroism. It reminded us that being a hero is not somebody else’s job: it’s our job. And, yes, it’s usually about taking some kind of risk, but the risk is not always life threatening. Sometimes, it’s the risk of just doing the right thing that inspires us. I would argue that even or particularly in life-threatening situations, that the harm element only augments what is really inspiring us: doing the right thing.

Therefore, I find Didio’s comment about needing to know that heroes put their lives on the life struck me as not just odd, but completely wrong. In comic books, I know that my heroes aren’t going to die; I’m not interested in seeing them “put their lives on the line.” I’m much more interested in how they solve the situation, the character developments, and the psychology of how do you navigate difficult situations – and navigate it by doing the right thing. And while the right thing may not be something everyone agrees on, it should be founded on a moral philosophy that we can at all least understand and makes sense with the character. Wonder Woman’s decision to kill Maxwell Lord is certainly a decision founded on utilitarian moral thought – and therefore has a legitimate moral basis – but is Wonder Woman a utilitarian? Even if she is, wouldn’t Wonder Woman think in a more morally creative fashion? How does killing a villain reconcile with the woman who can “stop a war with love?”

In summary, and coming back to the review in hand, even without a making-off documentary, there are some nice extras not mentioned above (including other JLA cartoon episodes as well as live-action pilots of the 70's Wonder Woman series, famously starring Linda Carter and the pilot for the much more recent Aquaman would-be series) and the movie is probably the best cartoon super-hero movie I've yet to see. (The best up to this point would either be the first Hellboy animated or the animated New Frontiers adaptation.) Some may consider this to be damning with faint praise, but this is truly an entertaining movie and a happy addition to my collection.

The Male Slave Leia Cosplayer

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:44:00 +0000

From Comic Alliance, this great gender bending take on a familiar costume...

I've got to say I find him nerdy-cute too...

The Male Slave Leia Cosplayer [ECCC]

I knew it: Bearclaws are totally gay

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:45:00 +0000

Because, of course, they're BEAR claws...what else are they gonna be?

Per Muffin the cupcake...

What Marriage Equality Does Not Do

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:43:00 +0000

Quoted on the Washington Post's blog was this statement, from a woman thrilled to be marrying her partner:

"We're whole now. We will actually be a true family just like everyone else."

No, sorry, you're not. Perhaps I should not argue the semantics of this statement, but rather take it in the spirit it was likely intended, but this is a dangerous line of thought.

While I firmly believe that the failure to permit same-sex couples to enjoy the legal rights and benefits bestowed upon opposite-sex couples is a form of legalized discrimination and oppression, in no way do I think that it legitimizes my relationship. My family is ALREADY true and whole, as much so as anyone's family is. The fact that it is not legally recognized does not change its authenticity, completeness, truth, or reality.

I do not seek the endorsement of the US government for my relationship; I seek the fulfillment of my rights as a citizen. If we are after the blessing of our society in this endeavor, then count me out. I don't need it or want it. I don't need other peoples' approval. What kind of violence does a statement like this woman's do to all the myriad types of relationships entered into by heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, trans people, or others?

We must realize our own truth; we must affirm our own unions. Some of us may seek the blessings of a Higher Power and I understand that. There are sanctuaries available for those who seek this. Legal recognition is not equivalent to a spiritual blessing. With our without a blessing, we must understand ourselves as already whole - as fully formed and already deserving of the recognition that heterosexual unions are entitled to. We seek legal status not as affirmation but because we have already affirmed our love and are waiting for the rest of the nation to get there with us.

Crossing the Streams: Captain America doesn't want you teabagging

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:54:00 +0000

So rarely does my interest in comics and social interests overlap. From an article on Yahoo! news about a recent Captain America comic that includes a reference to the teabaggers, comes this quote:

In response to Marvel's explanation and apology, Tea Party Movement founder
Judson Phillips told Yahoo! News that it "sounds less like a genuine 'we're
sorry' than it does a 'we're sorry we got caught' statement."

"When I was a child in the '60s Captain America was my favorite superhero,"
he said. "It's really sad to see what has traditionally been a pro-America
figure being used to advance a political agenda."

Like most things with Teabaggers, facts don't get in the way of a good sound bite. In fact, Captain America had in his creation as anti-Nazi WWII propaganda. He fought Hitler, horrible German and Japanese stereotypes, advocated for war bonds, you name the type of propoganda, Cap was not just part of it, but a response to it. Later in the 70's, Cap has always struggled with his moral and political place in the world.

Captain America has almost always since his revival in the 60's asked himself which America he represented: does he represent the government, the people, or some American Ideal? He's struggled both figuratively and literally with comic-book stand-ins for Nixon and Reagan.

Captain America has always been and always probably will be political.

I also find the not uncommon implication that comic books shouldn't and/or can't deal with political or other serious materials to be, not surprisingly for a Teabagger, short sighted, uninformed, and narrow minded. I would suggest he go read some of the classics of sequential literature, but I'd hate to suggest he actually go read original and creative thought.

Rise of $3 Dollars: American Taliban Update

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:21:00 +0000

An upcoming change in my life will hopefully prompt me to revive my blogging career. More on that in a few days... for now, this article was enough to get me to post an entry.

Via Joe.MyGod.:

American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer has called for sending homosexuals to prison for forced reparative
therapy, a move he says is sanctioned by the Bible.

[Mr. Fischer clarifies:] It might be worth noting that what I actually
suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual
behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose
the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. I'd be curious to know what you
think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the
same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual
behavior.

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an
effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through
an effective reparative therapy program.

Mr. Fischer then goes on to quote one of our favorite of the "clobber passages", (passages that are frequently brought up to dismiss non-heterosexuals as deviant, corrupt, immoral, or less than) 1 Timothy 1: 8-11. Mr. Fischer's Bible translates the unlawful as being among murders, liars, profaners, enslavers, people who hit their parents, and "men who practice homosexuality."

We'll skip for now how the Bible NEVER addresses female same-sex activity (not even in Romans) and look briefly at how the word homosexual could possibly show up in the Bible. The term homosexual, was created in Germany around the mid to late 1860's and became more widely known through Nazi literature and the rise of psychoanalysis (not to conflate the two).

Daniel Helminiak in What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality concludes that the two words that Paul uses are completely debatable. One term is very unclear and the other doesn't refer to "homogenitality" but rather "soft" or "effeminate" and then only in the sense that effeminacy was opposite to a virtuous man (so it is rooted in negative concepts about women, not same sex behavior). The other fairly unknown and uniique term likely refers to sexual perversion, prostitution, pederasty or sexual abuse.

The best argument against this term being applicable today is we we would view as modern forms of homosexual expression were not forms Paul (or anyone of that day) would know about - which is not, IMO and as an aside, a basis to make a case for the politically expedient but potentially dangerous "hey we're just like you but gay" argument.

One of my other favorite arguments against Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is that while the Bible may have injunctions against us, the Bible teaches a lot of things that we do not endorse in modern Western society.

All of that to say this: 1) these kinds of arguments make little if ANY headway against members of the American Taliban /Religious Right and 2) the great thing is that, so far, our country's laws are not based on any religious text, so in terms of who has what rights or who gets sent to jail, what does it matter what the Bible or Koran, or Talmud or any similar religious work (Dianetics?) say?

To answer my own rhetorical question, what matters of course is that there is at least a percentage or concentration of individuals who think our laws should be based on their particular interpretation of their (usually the Bible) religious work and there are politicians who either agree with that viewpoint or are willing to pander to it for votes. The religious right should not be ignored or trivialized. It is still a movement with some degree of power and influence, although that seems to be waning. However, the calls to action and voice of the leaders of the religious right has become more strident and intolerant than ever - hopefully because they see their power diminishing - but things can get much worse before they get better. It will still be a while until these fascists are fully and completely disregarded as the hate mongers they are.

FCBD

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:17:00 +0000

Free Comic Book Day, an annual, national event for the promotion of comic books, was yesterday. Local and phenonmenal store Heroes Aren't Hard to Find always puts on a great party that includes reginal artists doing free sketches also. It really is incredible seeing all these talented people willing to put in their time and not charge for sometimes near-finished pieces. The amount of work and detail some of these individuals put in is incredible. And the Heroes owner, Shelton Drum, and his staff are always fantastic, even on such a crazy day for them .

I have a sketchbook that has the theme of "monsters." I just ask artists to draw a monster of their choosing (or sometimes if I have a specific monster in mind, of my choosing). Here are the cool sketches I got this year plus two from last year that I haven't had the opportunity to post. The other sketches in my book are posted in this entry my now-defunct blog The Silent Accomplice.

2009 Sketches

Jason Latour (The Expatriate, Loose Ends) was doing color pieces and did this great Gene Colan-esque version of Hammer Studios Dracula. He knew "it couldn't be Bela Legosi." So, you get a white-haired Christopher Lee-type version of the Count. There's so many things I love about this piece from the hand outreaching in a cool 3-D effect to the way the mouth gapes open to his use of colors, especially the blue shading.

Here's a neat comparison shot I found on the web later of Christopher Lee in Horror of Dracula. Just to reiterate, Jason didn't have any comparison shot when he drew the sketch (he was something of an Encylopedia Brown, as dubbed by Chris Brummer), so it's uncanny how well he captures the feel of this version.

Nat Jones is known for his horror comics work with Steve Niles, on Spawn, and Frank Franzetta's Death Dealer, so it was a no-brainer to ask for a sketch of a monster from him, which resulted in this muck-encrusted mockery of man. Pretty dern creepy and a great add.

Chris Brummer (Gotham Central, Loose Ends) struggled for a moment to think of a suitable monster before coming up with this wonderful rendition of Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 movie
(Gary Oldman) Dracula. Clicking on the image will make it larger where you can see the wonderful detail in the chalice and the face of Dracula. What you won't be able to see, unfortunately, is the slight color of silver color in his eyes, giving the actual drawing another depth of eerieness. I think the serpentine depiction of the shadow does a great job of both evoking the scene in the movie as well as freshly and somewhat differently representing the predatory and evil nature of this seemingly harmless old man.

2008 FCBD Sketches

Tony Shasteen did this wonderfully detailed werewolf. My favorite part of this drawing is the eyes, which contain some wonderful fine details that make the picture almost seem alive.

Brian Stelfreeze surprised me somewhat coming up with this great Bride of Frankenstine. He began sketching and I had no idea what he was doing - I thought maybe Medusa or a harpie but when he got to that famous shock of hair I knew he had taken inspiration from the previous page's Frankenstein's monster to create this beauty that you can also hear screaming.