More Fabulous Than Thou

While moseying around Joe.My.God, I stumbled across this post where dear Joe explodes all over gay conservatives due to a response made by one to a post.

Yes, homophobia. Because above all, the thing that [gay right-wing bloggers] hate the most (and if you are unfortunate enough to come across any of these blogs, hate is often the Daily Special), is themselves. These are capital "A" assimilationists, mocking the mere existence of gay neighborhoods and belittling those who reside within, ridiculing the work of GLAAD and HRC, and making vicious attacks on Pride events. To some of them, people with HIV or AIDS are promiscuous, dirty drug addicts who got what they deserved. These gay right-wingers long for a world free of openly queer culture, a world where gays live fully integrated (and therefore invisible) in their picket-fenced, cul-de-sac'd McMansions. They shout that "gay is only a small part" of who they are, yet fail to see the irony in their blog titles which use words such as "gay", "queer", even "faggot". Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Pushing the gross generalizations, full-on hatred, and stereotyping aside, the idea of assimilation struck me. Here's my question:

If you're gay, and you live in a gay area, participate in many stereotypically gay things like drug-use and sex parties, listen to stereotypically gay music, and behave in a generally stereotypically gay manner, who's the real assimilationist? Are people who go "all in" to gay culture any different from those who eschew it entirely? Aren't the same impulses at work? Is a disdain for straight culture any different than a disdain for gay culture?

I'm merely asking. It seems to me, plunging headlong into the gay world and becoming nothing but gay is, in fact, simply another form of assimilation. Few people fall into all one thing or another by happenstance. Be it a religion, ideology, or identity community that one is not born into, people often make a conscious decision to become that thing, to let that define them completely for a host of reasons, good or bad.

Somewhere in the chaos of our comment section, I remarked that I tend to dwell in a social world that straddles the gay and straight divide. As gay rights advance, people around my age and younger have been granted the freedom to pick and choose what we like without letting it devour our identities. In my view, that is progress; that is the entire point of the gay rights movement. There is lot about gay culture I genuinely enjoy. I couldn't jolly well blog on a website focused around gay culture if I didn't. However, there are also parts I could do without - if not outright abhor (see: rampant drug use).

I find it strange that people who are militant towards gay freedom seem to dislike it when that freedom is exercised in a manner that isn't pre-approved by the self-annointed homo police. You must have certain politics, you must like gay culture or else you're assimilationist, etc. etc.

Man is a funny little hypocritical creature. Just saying.

Comments

[Josh]

Joe.My.God complaining about assimilationists: how delightfully anachronistic! It's like a window to 1985, only with slightly less hairspray and glitter.

Also, it's interesting that when homogays choose to live in the suburbs and date Christians the old people think they are rebels or something. How times change, I guess.

[Jack Malebranche]

You went to Joe.My.God...you were asking for it.

The parallel with McMansions was funny.

What is more commodified than gayness?

Gay Pride Flag - $20
Dinner for you and your latest trick at the toniest Gay-Owned Restarant - $200
Gay Cruise - $2000
Subscription to Gay Magazine - $20
Freedom Rings - $20
Something trashy to wear from your favorite Gay-owned store - $69
Tickets to a Gay Play - $120
Drinks at a Gay Bar - $60
New album by Diva X - $20
Most Recommended Gay Self Help Book with a Feel Good Message - $25
Entrance Fee For Festival Area at Pride - $20

Wrapping yourself up in a Gay Pride flag to cover up the fact that you're a vapid, damaged shell of a person...

...priceless.

[Al]

Hi Robbie,

Do you really think that is a fair portrayl of the article Joe wrote, as well as the general tone of the responding comments? I read the article, made a few comments, and generally found the discussion respectful of all views. As always notable exceptions applied.

The point for me is that if one expresses liberal ideas, or supports those who choose to live away from the mainstream, that view tends to be harshly critiqued by many on the right of center blogrolls. Not all, but from what I have seen it is a prevailing theme.

In turn many express the disdain they feel at the hands of the radical left. I admit, sometimes that is very justified. I find radical extremes on either end offputting and rather ineffective. Though if forced to make a choice, I am going to take the view that supports those who cannot do so for themselves, for whatever reason. That's the core of liberalism to me. I get that it is not for many. It doesn't have to be.

So I guess in that sense, I am a radical leftist. Though I don't live in the gay area, I have a career removed from the gay community, and an education I have worked at for many years, my last vacation was surfing in Peru, and I play rugby on a provincial team, having coached it in an after school program for ten years.

Why do I mention this? Because I find that in the usual right wing descriptions of "moonbat liberals" the examples I point out above are never allowed. As the uniform description of those suoporting progressive ideals and personal autonomy is very one dimensional, often falling back on stereotype in an effort to insult.

Personal identity can often be seperate from personal ideology. I don't doubt that happens to conservatives as well. I will always staunchly defend a myriad of things that on a deeper level I question the actual benefit of. Including your right to hold a belief which by mandate does not define your other beliefs.

To me, that's the difference. Being tolerant in my eyes means being tolerant of that which is unappealing to you. It's the framework of equal rights and a concept I believe in. And it's a concept I generally am not getting a vibe of most times I read a conservative blog. I think that was the main thesis of Joe's piece.

Just some thoughts.

Take care,

Al

[Robbie]

I read the article, made a few comments, and generally found the discussion respectful of all views

Did we read the same comments thread? I thought it was 90% gratuitous bashing of anyone to the right of Michael Moore (which is kind of funny, given Joe's accusations about echo chambers. He does read his own comments sections, doesn't he?).

The point for me is that if one expresses liberal ideas, or supports those who choose to live away from the mainstream, that view tends to be harshly critiqued by many on the right of center blogrolls. Not all, but from what I have seen it is a prevailing theme.

It depends on the argument being made. Take the Iraq war (and please, let's not rehash the whole thing). There are a lot of good, solid, honest arguments against the Iraq war. I know liberals who can argue the hell out of the thing, and I can say, "You have a good point there." Those are liberals. Moonbats? "Bush is ALL THINGS SATAN!!!! RARRRR!!!" Or my personal favorite, "Republicans were behind 9/11! They either made it happen or let it happen!" Yeah, I'm not going to be having a civil discussion with someone like that. There comes a point where rationality and discussion are useless. When people are off in that territory, there's really nothing I can do. Same with right-wing religious types. The Bible is the Bible to them, and no amount of logic or discussion on my part is going to make a dent.

To me, that's the difference. Being tolerant in my eyes means being tolerant of that which is unappealing to you. It's the framework of equal rights and a concept I believe in. And it's a concept I generally am not getting a vibe of most times I read a conservative blog. I think that was the main thesis of Joe's piece.

This is interesting, because your remarks in this paragraph are completely at odds with Joe's expressed attitude. You're far closer to my opinion than you are to Joe's. I'm fine if someone wants to be a liberal or a conservative, or even a moonbat or a wingnut. People can believe as they believe. It doesn't make them less human. And yet, a strong thrust of Joe's arguments (both in the post I've referenced and other posts and comments of his I've read), is that some people are "less gay" if they don't think certain things. He definitely has a "gayer than thou" attitude working for him. Look at his comments here for many an example:

http://www.conjecturer.com/weblog/?p=1931#comments

Personally, I don't have much trouble with the varying degrees of gay culture people choose to participate in. Some of my friends are nothing but gay, and some of my friends don't do anything that could be ascribed as stereotypically gay. And that's their choice. I don't bash them for their personal tastes. I don't berate them for not being gay enough or being too gay. I certainly don't refer to any of them as assimilationists. It's not possible for a gay man to not like anything about gay culture without being psychologically screwed up? That's a tolerant attitude?

Reread Joe's post and that comments section. Does that seem terrifically tolerant to you? It doesn't to me. Not at all. I see it as simply the flip side of the intolerant coin, the yin to the right-wing yang.

Your mileage may vary.

[Malcontent]

There is so much wrong with what Joe wrote in such a short post that it boggles the mind where to begin.

But let's start with the irony of a man who derides the supposed "echo-chambers" on other blogs, and then a few words later says he will delete any comments referring to how Andrew Sullivan got HIV because of his flagrant, serial barebacking.

But in a way, he is entertaining in his blinkered wrong-headedness.

[Al]

But isn't how Andrew got HIV really only a concern to Andrew and the person who knowingly or unknowingly infected him. I think where Joe indicated he was going to delete comments, it was becasue the Sullivan HIV issue is usually one that is quite effective at taking a topic of discussion and derailing into the "who is to blame if I get HIV" useless debate that will never solve a thing.

The point that i never see addressed is the way the majority of vocal socially conservative gay people address their non identity with aspects of the gay community, traditional references to iconic gay images, stereotypical behaviors etc.

No one that I know is saying you must buy into the rainbow flag mantra. For the most part I don't buy into a lot of the cultural set up in the gay community either. But I also don't devalue those who do accept it. That's the rub with most liberals.

I don't blame effeminite gay men for rights not being advanced, I don't make fun of the politics and appearance of radical feminist culture, I don't tell minorities how to experience racism, or to "get over it" when they do. And i don't equate a value on to people based on the amount,type,frequancy, or randomness of their sexual choices. If those choices are deceptive in intention or relevant fact then I judge that.

I don't see this with the vast majority of gay conservative opinion I read or hear. I see blame, and I see unfair judgements based upon ones very specific personal sense of morality. Personal being the operative word.Not a morality handbook to be the best gay you can be or you don't deserve to be in the club. I think Joe's post was totally accurate in so far as what I described above.

In closing, though what I wrote has been my experience, I will always make an attempt, and usually am successful, at hearing the person first. Even if I would be able to justify every stereotype commonly engaged. I try hard never to do that. I don't see that same attempt with most conservatives.

[Robbie]

No one that I know is saying you must buy into the rainbow flag mantra.

See, before addressing any other parts of your arguments, what you've stated here is going to make it hard for discussion. Joe's assimilationist shtick is very much a lambasting of people who don't buy into the rainbow flag mantra. Take Pride, for example. I enjoy Pride. Not everyone does. I have friends, liberal and conservative, who find Pride parades offensive for different reasons. It's their opinion, and if they don't want to attend, I'm certainly not going to lay into them. Joe's laid into people who think that way, in no uncertain terms.

My blogpartner and I have encountered serious attitude and disdain for being gay and not having across-the-board liberal politics. We've both posted about our encounters at length.

You say you're unfamiliar with gay people on the Left who do nothing but attack other gay people who don't share their politics. I believe you, but it's really going to make for difficult conversation. If you're unfamiliar with the Mike Rogers of the world, if you've never sat back and watched lengthy comment threads on gay sites where anyone gay and not a Democrat or liberal is no different than a Jew for Hitler, you're a very fortunate guy.

For me and a lot of others who go against the conventional thinking of the gay movement, we've been in for no small amount of intolerant shit from hard-core activists. If you've honestly never noticed it, I'm not sure where a good conversational starting point would be.

(One note: I know maybe a dozen or two gay conservatives, and of those, only about two are actual social conservatives. Gay conservatives generally reach that label based on issues like defense, foreign policy, federal budgets, etc. I've found really socially conservative gay men to be a tiny minority within a minority within a minority).

[Queer Conservative]

Wow, I forgot about making that comment. Sweet.

Just to clarify, my comment had nothing to do with the little hooligan's sexuality. It had everything to do with their criminal behavior and lack of respect for others in the neighborhood.

What does their sexual orientation have to do with being expected to act like decent human beings?

[Robbie]

I had wondered.

I also liked the whole, "They hate Pride!"

You, Queer "Southern Decadence" Conservative just loathe gay culture. Admit it!

[LikeOMGFab]

We all gay or straight, liberal or conservative assimilate and contradict ourselves in some way. Not because we are liberal or conversative, gay or straight; simply because we're human, and that's what we do. My point is, neither Robbie nor Joe.My.God are right. Everything is about personal choice and comfortability. We are ALL hypocrites.

[Al]

"In turn many express the disdain they feel at the hands of the radical left. I admit, sometimes that is very justified. I find radical extremes on either end offputting and rather ineffective".

I said this in my first comment. I'm not sure how you are getting that I never noticed the dogma of the left, or the dogma of the right for that matter. My point, is that it is dangerous to translate the personal belief one holds for how they relate to gay society as a blueprint for everyone else.

Mike Rogers? I think, and let me be clear, he's a dick. Outing is one of the most homophobic things to engage. It says we are ashamed, and we are using that shame to bring another down. I can't follow that logic. I admit this is a major out step in a very left leaning social ideology I have. And I have experienced being the target of the Rogers crowd more than once for those views..

I think the key for me in how I arrive at a decidedly liberal view is on the dynamics of oppression. In an ironic way, the ones that are pushed down the most, denied the most by those you and i would agree are intolerant bigots, are the same ones that the gay conservative movement attempts to push down as well.

You don't have to like peoples choices. I get that. But why the active anger and constant put downs? And understand I'm not directing that at you specifically, but at what I see as a common theme in the movement. I really believe that is what most were objecting to in Joe's post.

Assimilation is not a bad thing. But when it is done to gain access or rights by being "just like them", my experience has been it comes with this percieved "better than" status. The idea that all those gays who would dare live the stereotype need to grow up. They don't! and that dynamic just feeds into antigay bigotry already working off similar pressumptions. And yes, I fully realize it happens on the left as well. my opinion is the same in not tolerating it then either.

Anyway, I need to get ready to go earn my lunch. It's refreshing to discuss this respectfully. This is honestly the first time I have experienced that in this discussion. Thanks.

[LikeOMGFab]

Furthermore, I am a hardcore liberal, socialist, conspiracy theory believing, what-have-you wingnut...

But I don't hate Queer Republicans and don't think that Republicans are Satan. I believe that a lot of what Mal and Robbie say are not only relevant but very true.

[Patrick]

He mentioned something about a blog with the word "faggot" in the title. Who would call another gay man a faggot? Who!?

Thanks for tackling this. I read it last night and I didn't know what to say to him.

I think part of my frustration with some liberal gay men is the sense of arrogance and the idea that they somehow own "being gay;” that they are the real gays and the rest of us are sell-outs. That's the big frustration for me. There's no room for disagreement. There's no sense of camaraderie. It’s an exclusive club that they create for themselves and then they act surprised when some of us don’t want to be part of it, because that would mean silencing or changing our beliefs.

[LikeOMGFab]

I'll sleep with you, Patrick.

[Robbie]

"In turn many express the disdain they feel at the hands of the radical left. I admit, sometimes that is very justified. I find radical extremes on either end offputting and rather ineffective".

Ok, just that that seems a little at odds with the later statement about not knowing anyone who thinks gay people must buy into the rainbow mantra. I find the more radical left extreme in gay politics do think people should buy into various beliefs and agendas, or else they deserve to have abuse heaped on them by fellow gays. That's just my experience.

I think the key for me in how I arrive at a decidedly liberal view is on the dynamics of oppression. In an ironic way, the ones that are pushed down the most, denied the most by those you and i would agree are intolerant bigots, are the same ones that the gay conservative movement attempts to push down as well.

Let me give an example of something that divides conservatives and liberals. Affirmative action. I'm not a fan of it. I think it's patronizing and condescending to minorities, that it's unconstitutional for public, government-funded entities to engage in it, and that it does more harm than good in the long run.

However, I do think certain minorities are in situations that are in desperate need of fixing. African-Americans, for example, are disproportionately poor and disproportionately urban. My belief is that affirmative action is a feel good band-aid for a much more profound problem afflicting that group. Here in Illinois, school funding is tied to property taxes. Naturally, schools in poorer neighborhoods aren't going to be anywhere near as good as those in far-flung, affluent white suburbs. Furthermore, I think the increasing federalization of education ensures that more and more money vanishes in the behemoth of bureaucracy.

Why I'm conservative on this issue is because I think our educational system needs drastic reform, that the bureaucracy needs to be cut and the funds localized so more of it reaches the students, and that organizations like the NEA that protect really lousy teachers need to be held to greater account.

Now see, you and I agree on the situation (our educational system is inherently unequal) and we agree on the goal (we need to provide equality of opportunity to all citizens). What we differ on is the method. Just because people are conservative doesn't mean they're romping around holding the oppressed under a boot heel. I think that's a bit of demogoguery that too readily takes hold in the minds of political opponents.

And a lot of that applies to the various political situations. I'm generally supportive of gay marriage, but I very much disagree with the methods gay rights groups are currently using to get it. I think they're being very short-sighted, very politically immature, and very self-centered in a lot of different ways that aren't objectively good for gay people in the near and short term.

But when I and others criticize organizations like GLAAD or the HRC for their lousy politicking, we're seen as traitors to the cause. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not the kind of person who just complains. I offer my ideas on how I think things might be better advocated. Unfortunately, I find gay activists on the Left very unresponsive - if not outright hostile - to alternative methods or even discussion about alternative methods.

I hope this makes sense. I know I'm given to rambling.

[Patrick]

I want to resoind to this part if Joe's post:

Unsurprisingly, they all are white males, these bloggers, these gay men whose sites are an infected rash upon the skin of the blogosphere. Some of them are no more than hate-bloggers, back-slapping and high-fiving each other in circle jerks of racism, misogyny, classism, xenophobia, and most of all, homophobia.

Dear Joe, check the demographics of most gay ghettos. Say hi to all the crackers and then get back to me on this idea you have about conservatives being white.

Spare me the accusation of classism. Have a drink with the guys in West Hollywood, the ones who own houses that cost in the millions, or the ones who drive expensive cars, drink the perfect drink or know the perfect people. You want to talk classist?

Also, the most racist men I have met have been gay men.

The end.

[Patrick]

LikeOMGFab, Huh?

[anapestic]

One of the definitions of "assimilation" is "the process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture." A minority group developing its own distinct identity simply doesn't fall within the meaning of assimilation.

Minority groups identify themselves as minority groups in order to protect themselves from oppression by the majority. There is a clear cost associated with this self-identification, but there are also clear benefits. At some point, when the majority culture recognizes the rights of the minority group, the benefits may not outweigh the costs and by being separatist, you do more harm than good. Different people have different opinions about where that point is.

It would be terrific if Joe would let people who live in the suburbs (or the least gay part of the city or whatever) do that and participate in as much or as little of gay culture as they want. It's not clear to me that he's telling people they can't do that.

It would be equally terrific if other people didn't attack the gays who choose to live in Chelsea or go to Pride or whatever. I do see a fair amount of sneering at people who make their homosexuality a more defining characteristic of a greater portion of their lives.

[Robbie]

Patrick, you bring up an excellent point. Chicago is a very multi-ethnic city, but Boystown (and surrounding Lakeview) is chock full of upper-middle class white people. It's all very gentrified and upscale.

Even suburban gay bars can get pretty segregated.

I remember, about five years ago, friends and I ventured into a gay bar that was around the city border. It consisted of white gay men and hispanic gay men. The white gay men stood on one side of the room, the hispanic men on the other. Nothing but dead space inbetween. While sipping a drink at the bar, I kept wondering if a rumble was about to break out a la West Side Story.

[Robbie]

Anapestic, I'm not sure your comparison is valid. The difference involved here is that gay is not a native culture. 99% of homosexuals are born into the heterosexual world. Gays are already pre-assimilated into straight culture by virtue of birth.

Gay culture is what people assimilate themselves into, not the other way around. No one comes screaming out of the womb into a household that is all gay all the time (exception being certain gay adoptions, no doubt).

So, you have this dead backwards. People are native to straight culture by default. It's impossible to assimilate into it. You're already there. It's entering gay culture that's the choice and the adjustment.

[seventy plus]

Re: Joe.My.God unloads on gay conservatives.

Hey, he's talking about me, me who assimilated (stayed in the closet) most of my life. I guess it's an age thing; I grew up in an age where gay acts were criminalized, and there was always undercover police activity to lure and entrap "queers." Go read "Boys of Boise" to get a flavor of the age.

I'm grateful to those early gay activists who fought back and helped bring about change. I also believe our response as gays to the scourge of AIDS had a lot to do with the public's changing attitude. Have I now intentionally assimilated into the hetero model? What an assinine question! No. I live as an out-of-the-closet gay man in a 30 year plus monogamous relationship with my partner. Do we seek invisibility? Hardly, we live a social life enriched with both straight and gay friends. We don't mock gay neighborhoods or their residents, and don't condemn victims of HIV and AIDS.
What we do do, is feel sorry for those gays who define themselves so narrowly, who can't open themselves to the larger community around them thus limiting themselves to greater possibilites; also limiting their ability to influence heteroes on a one-to-one basis.

And if we must consider the question of assimilation, are not the left-wing activists the ones behind the gay marriage movement? Are not they, like Andrew Sullivan, the ones unwilling to opt for civil unions? Obviously, I can't get into their heads, but I believe they consider themselves victims of a hostile hetero society (which did exist in the 1940s/1950s), and they react in juvenile fashion (I'll show them!). Angry words, angry words; where is there an attempt at love or understanding? As I said earlier, we feel sorry for them.

Seventy-plus

[Aatom]

"At some point, when the majority culture recognizes the rights of the minority group, the benefits may not outweigh the costs and by being separatist, you do more harm than good. Different people have different opinions about where that point is."

I'm going with anapestic on this one. The above is a very wise statement.

It's funny, I found that my site has a Kinja card recently (anyone care to explain what that really is?) and the tags that have been applied to me for cataloguing are (in order of importance, I can only assume) "conservative, media, new york, gay, gossip." I'm more conservative than most gay bloggers I assume, but I do not consider myself a Conservative proper, which begs the question: who is applying these tags for us at Kinja?

What I've found is that there is a much heavier libertarian presence in the right-leaning blogosphere than a strictly conservative one. This independent streak allows those of us who aren't card-carrying members of a political party to do things like criticize the President when he deserves it, or support gay culture, or carve out a unique set of policy positions that don't conform neatly to anyone's platform. But all something like Kinja, or Joe, can see is "conservative" because there isn't a uniformity of leftist rhetoric to be found.

In reality, I'm much more of a libertarian centrist (think of a right-leaning Joe Klein) that agrees pretty wholeheartedly with anapestic's attitude above. I find Joe to be an insufferable left-wing boor most of the time, but he is an amazing writer and obviously a very intelligent man who isn't afraid to come on sites like this one and defend his ideas. And I have seen the type of right-wing sites that he is talking about. I'm not one, and this isn't one, but they are out there, and it's disingenuous on our part to pretend they don't exist just as it's disingenuous on his part to insinuate that all right-leaning sites fall into that mold.

And as far as echo chambers go, perhaps Joe should step out of the giant one that the blogosphere represents for a moment to clear his head.

[Dan]

Reading your critique and subsequent followup comments makes me question whether you got past the first sentence of Joe's critique. Seriously - the most recent comments seem to have nothing to do with Joe's post at all. Way to use that cognitive dissonance, guys.

Bringing things back on track: Joe isn't attacking those that don't fit into one stereotype or another. If you're perfectly happy living in the suburbs with the partner, the dog, the Explorer/Grand Cherokee/X5 and the slightly right of center voting history, nobody's complaining about that. What Joe was specifically attacking were those people on the right who seem to harbor so much hatred for those people who don't conform to the lifestyle i just laid out.

Are gays becoming progressively more assimilated? Sure. As our country becomes more liberal in its attitudes towards sexuality, gays don't have to devote so much of their time defending their right to exist. This gives us the freedom to consider political issues w/o all the baggage people 10-20 years ago had. Your website is a perfect example of this fact. That being said - assimilation doesn't mean all gays should now move to the political center. It doesn't mean that all gays should trade in their overpriced (yet fabulous) downtown lofts for a more reasonably priced spread in the burbs. It doesn't mean that all gays should suddenly be just like everyone else.

It means we have the freedom to do whatever the hell we want to. Without having to conform to somebody else's definition of 'normal'.

[Queer Conservative]

I don't think anyone is trying to tell people how they should live. Again, my comment at JMG was directed at the criminal actions of the little thugs running wild in someone else's neighborhood. I don't care if the little queen wants to walk around with a basketball sized buttplug in 24/7, but do not disrespect other peoples homes, property, or community. Their plain lack of manners and common sense is what pissed me off.

[Patrick]

"participate in many stereotypically gay things like drug-use and sex parties"

I don't think that's stereotypical gay. I think that's a subculture and far from generally gay.

I think the problem with liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, red and blue is that they identify themselves by aligning with a school of thought that portends to be the only way of thinking-- much like religious practice. If only people would align themselves with their selves alone (a.k.a. mind their own business, live and let live, do unto others as they would have done unto them, etc.)...