Gay You, Gay Me
15/11/05 08:18
"I am
gay. I am different, but I am not weird. I am not
inferior. I am normal, I am one of the guys."
This is a quote from a recently out young gay man from California. It's from an email in which he discusses his agreement with Andrew Sullivan's essay "The End of Gay Culture." The poli-sci major from USC played football his high school, hunted, and did all the "guy things" all his life. Friends and acquaintances, he says, were shocked that he was gay due to the stereotypes they carried of gay folk. He ends with "I am one of the guys."
It's must be odd growing up white and gay. You can hide the fact you're gay. Thus, if white, you can "masquerade" as a de facto straight boy/man and guarantee yourself equal treatment. You can guarantee yourself the fruits of the privileged.
I am black. I cannot hide the fact that I am black. It is written on my skin. Thus, any stereotypes, preconceptions or prejudices one may hold against me will come into play the moment someone sets their eyes on me. This is a fact of my existence. It's a fact with which every black man, woman, and child must come to grips in the best way possible (just as every woman, Asian, etc. must). At points in American history, it has been a step beyond the yellow star stuck to your coat. It was the perceived taint painted on your flesh.
Even today, you deal with a white co-worker at a mandated company get together saying to you, "Of course, you know how to rap, right?" Such mind-boggling ignorance. You're tempted to dismiss it. But then you wonder, "in the course of a workday, what other assumptions has this woman made about me because of my skin color?"
I feel a little saddened on reading the email from the young, white gay man. I feel sad because of his insistence that he's just like every other white boy. He mentions fear of rejection, seemingly fear of rejection, of no longer being considered "one of the boys," but how did he feel when he heard and giggled along with the rest to, the faggot jokes in the locker room? Did that fear of rejection ever lead to shame? With what doubts about himself did he struggle? To read his email, it is as if, to date, he has been accepted, and therefore not of that had any lasting effect on him.
That may be the case. If so, I am doubly saddened. That would mean that there is yet one more white man out there who chooses not to acknowledge what it's like to be on the other side... to be not of the privileged caste... to have a piece inside you that the majority does not know, may applaud, hate, or be indifferent to, but that is special to you, that has caused you to reflect a bit more than the average man, that has opened your eyes a bit wider to people who may not be just like you, that has forced you to look at your fellows with eyes a bit more accepting and less prejudicial.
White gays I have known who were so insistent on their "just one of the guys" status always struck me as protesting too much. It was as if they were desperate to maintain their privileged status as white males, and just could not abide that something as small as sucking dick would deny them those rights. Thus they rail and rant that they're just like straight men, and to prove it, too often showed the same intolerance, myopia, prejudice that represents the worst of the breed.
Sullivan is right in that acceptance of gays is advancing, particularly within the new generations coming age. However, I hope that acceptance does not blind gays to the fact of the inherent tension in stating both, "I am different," and "I am one one of the guys" in the same sentence. There is a tension there, and to acknowledge it is to dig deeper into oneself, to know oneself just a little better.
I am black and gay. Sometimes, I am just one of the guys. Sometimes I am not. Would it be that different if I were white and gay? Would it be different for white gay men if they wore their gayness on their skins?
Guess we'll never know.
This is a quote from a recently out young gay man from California. It's from an email in which he discusses his agreement with Andrew Sullivan's essay "The End of Gay Culture." The poli-sci major from USC played football his high school, hunted, and did all the "guy things" all his life. Friends and acquaintances, he says, were shocked that he was gay due to the stereotypes they carried of gay folk. He ends with "I am one of the guys."
It's must be odd growing up white and gay. You can hide the fact you're gay. Thus, if white, you can "masquerade" as a de facto straight boy/man and guarantee yourself equal treatment. You can guarantee yourself the fruits of the privileged.
I am black. I cannot hide the fact that I am black. It is written on my skin. Thus, any stereotypes, preconceptions or prejudices one may hold against me will come into play the moment someone sets their eyes on me. This is a fact of my existence. It's a fact with which every black man, woman, and child must come to grips in the best way possible (just as every woman, Asian, etc. must). At points in American history, it has been a step beyond the yellow star stuck to your coat. It was the perceived taint painted on your flesh.
Even today, you deal with a white co-worker at a mandated company get together saying to you, "Of course, you know how to rap, right?" Such mind-boggling ignorance. You're tempted to dismiss it. But then you wonder, "in the course of a workday, what other assumptions has this woman made about me because of my skin color?"
I feel a little saddened on reading the email from the young, white gay man. I feel sad because of his insistence that he's just like every other white boy. He mentions fear of rejection, seemingly fear of rejection, of no longer being considered "one of the boys," but how did he feel when he heard and giggled along with the rest to, the faggot jokes in the locker room? Did that fear of rejection ever lead to shame? With what doubts about himself did he struggle? To read his email, it is as if, to date, he has been accepted, and therefore not of that had any lasting effect on him.
That may be the case. If so, I am doubly saddened. That would mean that there is yet one more white man out there who chooses not to acknowledge what it's like to be on the other side... to be not of the privileged caste... to have a piece inside you that the majority does not know, may applaud, hate, or be indifferent to, but that is special to you, that has caused you to reflect a bit more than the average man, that has opened your eyes a bit wider to people who may not be just like you, that has forced you to look at your fellows with eyes a bit more accepting and less prejudicial.
White gays I have known who were so insistent on their "just one of the guys" status always struck me as protesting too much. It was as if they were desperate to maintain their privileged status as white males, and just could not abide that something as small as sucking dick would deny them those rights. Thus they rail and rant that they're just like straight men, and to prove it, too often showed the same intolerance, myopia, prejudice that represents the worst of the breed.
Sullivan is right in that acceptance of gays is advancing, particularly within the new generations coming age. However, I hope that acceptance does not blind gays to the fact of the inherent tension in stating both, "I am different," and "I am one one of the guys" in the same sentence. There is a tension there, and to acknowledge it is to dig deeper into oneself, to know oneself just a little better.
I am black and gay. Sometimes, I am just one of the guys. Sometimes I am not. Would it be that different if I were white and gay? Would it be different for white gay men if they wore their gayness on their skins?
Guess we'll never know.
Friedman's "Illicit" Media
11/11/05 07:47
The
journalistic impulse is too often indulged by those
whose arrogance far outstrips their intelligence.
My collegiate exposure to budding newshounds
convinced me of this. There was too often a
positively luminous taint of self-righteousness
running through these nascent reporters' veins.
They glowed with it.
It is understandable. These folks seek the truth. Popular mythology, which helps drive most of us to our ultimate careers, portrays the noble muckracker as the public's hero against the forces of power, greed and the tyranny those two can breed. However, as the Judith Miller episode displays, this self-righteousness can congeal into the belief that whatever the newsman believes is inherently truth. They morph from seekers of truth, to those who own it, and dispense it.
In his NY Times column today, Thomas Friedman rails against the disappearance of "the center" in politics. After mentioning gerrymandering as a cause the writes:
"Add to this the fragmentation of the media, with the rising power of bloggers and podcasters, and the decline in authority of traditional centrist institutions - including this newspaper - and you have what the Foreign Policy Magazine editor Moises Naim rightly calls 'the age of diffusion.'"
In the very next paragraph he complains of "how small illicit players, using the tools of globalization, are now able to act very big on the world stage, weakening nations and the power of executives across the globe." Note that this sentence assumes the rightful supremacy of "nations and the power of executives." Fine. But last time I checked, at least in America, the "nation's" authority comes from the people, and those supposedly "illicit" vehicles are voices of those people, right, left or wrong.
To add weight to his point, he invokes Moises Naim's book, entitled "Illicit." I was struck by the word "illicit" in a seeming reference to bloggers and podcasters. "Illicit" means "unlawful." There is nothing unlawful about podcasting or blogging. At least not yet.
Friedman writes as if this is a notion was gleaned from Naim's book. He never directly says it, but it's implicit in the way the two paragraphs are structured and the conclusions drawn. I haven't read Naim's book, so I ran to the Doubleday link for the book to read an excerpt that might explain how Mr. Naim justifies labeling alternate media as "illicit." The description and excerpt describe a book about markets in illegal goods--from pirated books, CDs and DVDs, to dugs and munitions. Naim, at least from the excerpt, seems to be discussing illegal trade in the book Friedman uses to justify labeling alternate media as "illicit." A look at linked reviews of the book did nothing to suggest that the book labels alternate media sources "illicit."
Is this Friedman's leap? Or does it appear in the book, and if so, in what context? I'm going to get the book, but I fear the former.
Friedman was one of the chief cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. He waxed rhapsodic about a Middle East transformed in the image of enlightened Islam--via American hands. He ignored the fact that the President who proposed this was a lip-diddling idiot. He ignored the hyperbole used by the administration to suggest a link between Iraq and Al Queda in order to sell the war to the American people. He ignored the fact that if you have to lie to sell a war (and everyone knew that the Iraq/Al Queda link was a lie) then you need to question the entire enterprise. He had visions of Middle East sugar plums dancing in his head.
It's understandable that Friedman would consider bloggers like Juan Cole--whose knowledge of the Middle East outstrips his and who used new media to debunk Friedman's contentions--"illicit." Friedman owns the truth. He boldly--even regally--declares his newspaper a beacon of the centrist ideal of the legitimate media. This, the same New York Times at which Judy Miller worked as (in Maureen Dowd's term) stenographer to the Bush Neocons to spread their dubious case for war. It was the paper in which he, Friedman, ignored caution, and good sense, in order to further the Neocon's utopian Middle East vision-- that a bunch of people who didn't know diddly about the Iraq or the Middle East, could swoop in and reverse centuries of history and culture with a sweep of their lordly hands. He refuses to acknowledge that the NY Times has lost its authority not because bloggers stole it, but because the paper forfeited it through sloppiness and arrogance--some of it his.
It is understandable. These folks seek the truth. Popular mythology, which helps drive most of us to our ultimate careers, portrays the noble muckracker as the public's hero against the forces of power, greed and the tyranny those two can breed. However, as the Judith Miller episode displays, this self-righteousness can congeal into the belief that whatever the newsman believes is inherently truth. They morph from seekers of truth, to those who own it, and dispense it.
In his NY Times column today, Thomas Friedman rails against the disappearance of "the center" in politics. After mentioning gerrymandering as a cause the writes:
"Add to this the fragmentation of the media, with the rising power of bloggers and podcasters, and the decline in authority of traditional centrist institutions - including this newspaper - and you have what the Foreign Policy Magazine editor Moises Naim rightly calls 'the age of diffusion.'"
In the very next paragraph he complains of "how small illicit players, using the tools of globalization, are now able to act very big on the world stage, weakening nations and the power of executives across the globe." Note that this sentence assumes the rightful supremacy of "nations and the power of executives." Fine. But last time I checked, at least in America, the "nation's" authority comes from the people, and those supposedly "illicit" vehicles are voices of those people, right, left or wrong.
To add weight to his point, he invokes Moises Naim's book, entitled "Illicit." I was struck by the word "illicit" in a seeming reference to bloggers and podcasters. "Illicit" means "unlawful." There is nothing unlawful about podcasting or blogging. At least not yet.
Friedman writes as if this is a notion was gleaned from Naim's book. He never directly says it, but it's implicit in the way the two paragraphs are structured and the conclusions drawn. I haven't read Naim's book, so I ran to the Doubleday link for the book to read an excerpt that might explain how Mr. Naim justifies labeling alternate media as "illicit." The description and excerpt describe a book about markets in illegal goods--from pirated books, CDs and DVDs, to dugs and munitions. Naim, at least from the excerpt, seems to be discussing illegal trade in the book Friedman uses to justify labeling alternate media as "illicit." A look at linked reviews of the book did nothing to suggest that the book labels alternate media sources "illicit."
Is this Friedman's leap? Or does it appear in the book, and if so, in what context? I'm going to get the book, but I fear the former.
Friedman was one of the chief cheerleaders for the war in Iraq. He waxed rhapsodic about a Middle East transformed in the image of enlightened Islam--via American hands. He ignored the fact that the President who proposed this was a lip-diddling idiot. He ignored the hyperbole used by the administration to suggest a link between Iraq and Al Queda in order to sell the war to the American people. He ignored the fact that if you have to lie to sell a war (and everyone knew that the Iraq/Al Queda link was a lie) then you need to question the entire enterprise. He had visions of Middle East sugar plums dancing in his head.
It's understandable that Friedman would consider bloggers like Juan Cole--whose knowledge of the Middle East outstrips his and who used new media to debunk Friedman's contentions--"illicit." Friedman owns the truth. He boldly--even regally--declares his newspaper a beacon of the centrist ideal of the legitimate media. This, the same New York Times at which Judy Miller worked as (in Maureen Dowd's term) stenographer to the Bush Neocons to spread their dubious case for war. It was the paper in which he, Friedman, ignored caution, and good sense, in order to further the Neocon's utopian Middle East vision-- that a bunch of people who didn't know diddly about the Iraq or the Middle East, could swoop in and reverse centuries of history and culture with a sweep of their lordly hands. He refuses to acknowledge that the NY Times has lost its authority not because bloggers stole it, but because the paper forfeited it through sloppiness and arrogance--some of it his.
Open Letter to Colin Powell
01/11/05 13:14
Like
you, my father was a career Army officer. Like you,
he felt honored to serve in the US military. Like
you, he entered the military when racism was overt.
Like you, he rose to officer status (he retired a
Colonel) despite the obstacles placed in his
path.
You receive the benefit of the doubt, General Powell. You receive it because black people admire the heights you attained in your career, and because you have never become a sock puppet for the right. You never acquiesced to the Faustian bargain that men like Clarence Thomas or Armstrong Williams seem to accept. You never agreed to forget you were black--in exchange for white handlers rewarding you as if you were white. You never felt you had to do as Thomas Sowell does and deny the existence of racism today or yesterday. You aligned yourself with causes you felt right, despite their lack of popularity in the Republican party to which you belonged.
You have deserved the benefit of the doubt. However, to date, over 2000 Americans are dead, over ten thousand wounded; hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. The US standing in the world continues to plummet. Terrorist activity is on the rise. The Iraq war has caused these things, and you presented the evidence to the world that made that war happen.
We now know that the evidence you presented was based on lies. You insist that you did not know that, and I, and most others, believe you. However, apologies are no longer enough. As this administration continues to damage US security, attempts to strip citizens of hard-won rights through packing the Supreme Court with extremists--as this occurs, you no longer have the luxury of remaining silent. Loyalty is valuable, but "just following orders" is a coward's excuse. When, General Powell, does the former morph into the latter? I think that time is now. It's when the blood runs so thick, that only the blind or the morally corrupt cannot see it, and only the ideologically crippled refuse to acknowledge it. That time is now.
Recently, your former deputy at the State Department, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, spoke the truth about the Bush administration and its foreign policy. It's time for you to do the same. Everyone realizes that the Bushies play rough, and that any blots on your record or your family's will be ruthlessly exploited by their attack machine should you come forward. However, men and women are dying. Are they dying needlessly? That is a question you can help answer. And if you are anything near the patriot that you have claimed to be, you will help American answer that question. You will put the truth about the Bushes. You will put the country above the Bushes.
If you do not, all of us who admired your accomplishments will have to sit back and watch as you, a diminished figure who was shamelessly used by those whose power you put above your own pride, your own reputation, and your country's well being--we will watch as you retire to soak up hefty speaking fees in mild infamy; watch as you quietly lick the blood from your hands.
You receive the benefit of the doubt, General Powell. You receive it because black people admire the heights you attained in your career, and because you have never become a sock puppet for the right. You never acquiesced to the Faustian bargain that men like Clarence Thomas or Armstrong Williams seem to accept. You never agreed to forget you were black--in exchange for white handlers rewarding you as if you were white. You never felt you had to do as Thomas Sowell does and deny the existence of racism today or yesterday. You aligned yourself with causes you felt right, despite their lack of popularity in the Republican party to which you belonged.
You have deserved the benefit of the doubt. However, to date, over 2000 Americans are dead, over ten thousand wounded; hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. The US standing in the world continues to plummet. Terrorist activity is on the rise. The Iraq war has caused these things, and you presented the evidence to the world that made that war happen.
We now know that the evidence you presented was based on lies. You insist that you did not know that, and I, and most others, believe you. However, apologies are no longer enough. As this administration continues to damage US security, attempts to strip citizens of hard-won rights through packing the Supreme Court with extremists--as this occurs, you no longer have the luxury of remaining silent. Loyalty is valuable, but "just following orders" is a coward's excuse. When, General Powell, does the former morph into the latter? I think that time is now. It's when the blood runs so thick, that only the blind or the morally corrupt cannot see it, and only the ideologically crippled refuse to acknowledge it. That time is now.
Recently, your former deputy at the State Department, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, spoke the truth about the Bush administration and its foreign policy. It's time for you to do the same. Everyone realizes that the Bushies play rough, and that any blots on your record or your family's will be ruthlessly exploited by their attack machine should you come forward. However, men and women are dying. Are they dying needlessly? That is a question you can help answer. And if you are anything near the patriot that you have claimed to be, you will help American answer that question. You will put the truth about the Bushes. You will put the country above the Bushes.
If you do not, all of us who admired your accomplishments will have to sit back and watch as you, a diminished figure who was shamelessly used by those whose power you put above your own pride, your own reputation, and your country's well being--we will watch as you retire to soak up hefty speaking fees in mild infamy; watch as you quietly lick the blood from your hands.
George Will's Declaration of Subjugation
01/11/05 10:01
Bless
George Will's little heart. In his colum
he
wrote:
"This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- "results" -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?"
The honest question is: Should the Constitution be read so broadly by conservatives that it allows the State to legislate any and every aspect of our lives? Should the State tell us who we can make love to, in what positions we can make love to them? Should it tell women when they must talk to their husbands? Should the State tell individuals and their qualified doctors how best to relieve that individual's suffering? Should it tell women what they must do with their bodies?
Will has been a professional hyprocrite for decades. He knows that Alito is an activist conservative who will overturn Congressional legislation on a dime in order to further the "social outcomes" he advocates. However, to Will and his racist, homophobic, woman-hating ilk, it's only a "social outcome" when it advances the rights and freedoms of women or minorities. It's "strict construction" when it restricts our rights and freedoms. To him--to them--the Constitution is a racist document that regards women with contempt. And frankly, it may well be. God knows that was the mindset of the men who drafted it. The question is, has America progressed? Do we continue to seek "a more perfect union," or assume the one that held chattel slavery and females-as-property as norms achieved a Divine perfection? Does America progress, or does it not?
That is the choice we have. Do we fight for a more perfect union, or acquiesce to the lie that the one that kept more than half the population in chains was as good as it gets?
Thanks to those like George Will, we know the conservatives' answer.
"This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- "results" -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?"
The honest question is: Should the Constitution be read so broadly by conservatives that it allows the State to legislate any and every aspect of our lives? Should the State tell us who we can make love to, in what positions we can make love to them? Should it tell women when they must talk to their husbands? Should the State tell individuals and their qualified doctors how best to relieve that individual's suffering? Should it tell women what they must do with their bodies?
Will has been a professional hyprocrite for decades. He knows that Alito is an activist conservative who will overturn Congressional legislation on a dime in order to further the "social outcomes" he advocates. However, to Will and his racist, homophobic, woman-hating ilk, it's only a "social outcome" when it advances the rights and freedoms of women or minorities. It's "strict construction" when it restricts our rights and freedoms. To him--to them--the Constitution is a racist document that regards women with contempt. And frankly, it may well be. God knows that was the mindset of the men who drafted it. The question is, has America progressed? Do we continue to seek "a more perfect union," or assume the one that held chattel slavery and females-as-property as norms achieved a Divine perfection? Does America progress, or does it not?
That is the choice we have. Do we fight for a more perfect union, or acquiesce to the lie that the one that kept more than half the population in chains was as good as it gets?
Thanks to those like George Will, we know the conservatives' answer.