unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Wiretapped? Here's a Quarter to Call Someone Who Cares | Main | Rooster, Bring Me The Labor! »

February 21, 2006

Comments

wfoster

I am not even sure the marriage issue is really all that important in the big scheme of things for the homoerotic minded. And when one talks about political activism, the questions are obviously about government policies: so most gays, like and most Americans, are going to be skeptical about using government power to enforce social acceptance of gays. Especially when, as you say, the activism comes dressed in leftist, in your face, America-disgusted drag. And I think many of the most vocal activists even want some form of praise and intellectual submission from straight society and think that politics is the way to get it. Screw that.

There is only one political issue related to gays and civil rights that right now I'd contribute money to a group trying to change things: the policy on private sex lives of those who serve in the military. And that question is not one of just passing a law or putting out an executive order. It is going to take thinking and persuasion by conservative and libertarian gay men who address the issue as proud Americans, comfortable with the military and sensitive to what serious men worry about. Let's face it: as long as most of society sees depictions of gays as frivolous or effeminate or haunted or wracked by hidden longings, or simply self-defined in terms of sexual desire, most of society will tolerate our antics, sympathize, maybe shed a tear, but hesitate before listening to us about serious and dangerous things.

And another thing while I’m ranting: we have got to de-Oprah-ize the conversation of the well-intentioned about homosexuality. But as you say, things are going to take a long time to change.

Robbie

Well, gay marriage was just one example. There are other issues I'd be willing to donate to, like repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

As far as gay organizations go, if they were actual gay organizations and not a smorgasboard of lefty identity politics, I'd be supportive of them. Unfortunately, they're mired in all kinds of diversity pap and issues that have not a thing to do with gay rights. Sure, some like Miss Sanchez try to tie gay rights to their various causes, just like Joe Solomnese tries telling us abortion rights and gay rights are roughly the same thing.

I don't buy it. It's not what I'm interested in spending money on. I'm the perfect demographic to give money to political causes. I'm an unmarried professional with no kids and plenty of disposable income. I donate to just about anyone who shows up at my door or gives me a ring.

But I won't donate to the gay rights groups. They're not protecting my interests. They're protecting a general lefty agenda that I don't necessarily agree with.

I'm not sure who to blame for this kind of thing (I lean towards uber-feminist lesbian activists if I'm being honest), but until it changes, they're not getting a penny out of me.

Aatom

right. in the meantime, laser-focused right-wing hate groups are laying the groundwork across the country to deny us property rights, children, marriage, and any other trapping of adulthood they can dream up. we are asleep at the wheel and it will take another few deacdes to unravel the damage. the gay rights movement needs to be reappropriated.

Robbie

Hrm, not sure if that "right" is sarcastic or not =)

But, yeah. If there's a gay rights group out there that focuses solely on gay rights, point me in the right direction and I'll happily donate, support them, volunteer. Whatever they please.

The abortion thing slays me. Gay rights are divisive enough in certain parts of the country. They're going to tie them into an even more potentially explosive issue?

No common sense.

Jeff

Robbie,so much of what you have written is just down right offensive to me, and what's worse - its true.

While we Dems have deluded ourselves into thinking we are "inclusive" the Republicans have brilliantly joined choirs to create a chorus with one very clear voice. And mind you, one that tolerates little, if any dissent in its ranks.

The result is a homophobes wet dream. Republicans are straight, Christian, Whitish (and educated Brownish).
Democrats are the fags, feminazis, Sharptonesque, babykilling, pro-Palistine, war time traitors.

Who in their right mind (no pun intended) would want to be cast in with the Lefty Losers?

Things on the left will not change until we demand leadership which taps into the best of Americas strength. Our intellect, innovation, our military might, (used more wisely) All our freedoms, including the 2nd Amendment. The Democratic party has become so rapt in defending the weakest among us, that we have become the weakest among us.

We have stroked ourselves raw, and wasted countless wads on what a crap-ass job Dubya is doing, that we can't even get it up to concieve a leader of our own.

We lefties need to get out of the petri dishes and into the battle.
We are not going to advance the rights of any oppressed until we can unite forces with the Right and defeat our common enemies who are a greater threat than any stem cell.

Our best hope for an end to Don't ask, Don't tell would be a Democratic leader with a vision, plan and acumen to supress an Iraqi insurgency, crush Iran's hopes of nuclear capability and secure our borders, THEN address the issues of who fights in our military.

Fighting policy during war is fruitless (again, no pun). Black soldiers fought nobly in the Civil War, and all the subsequent wars through WWII without equal rights, because our country is worth defending. Its that simple.

Survival of the fittest rules the game. If we are going to really help the disenfranchised and the oppressed, we need to be strong enough to give them a hand up without falling into the very pit we are trying to help them out of.


Aatom

no sarcasm there, Robbie. My point was that we obviously need a gay rights advocacy network, just not the one that we currently have.

Josh

I can just say "bravo, Robbie." Also, thanks for finally posting something!

But no, really—this is exactly the kind of crap I wrestle with all the time. Care to venture how many times I've been written off as "self-loating," "unthinking," "naïve," or "a tool of the heterosexual dictatorship?" More than I can remember, and certainly more than I have fingers or toes.

The moment the gay rights movement can disassociate itself with radical leftism is the moment I'll jump on board.

Robbie

Sometimes, I start kicking around the idea of gathering a group of bloggers and creating an actual non-partisan gay rights organization. No democrat vs republican, no other political issues, none of the ideological baggage that regularly attends gay activism.

Just a group of gay people who take things issue by issue, that is actually welcoming of diversity in thought, from religious gay folk to atheist.

Pipe dream? Probably.

But sometimes I wonder what a group like that might accomplish. Unfortunately, we seem stuck with the Solomneses of the world, but to my discouragement.

hank

Not a nickle to any of them.

Aatom

"Just a group of gay people who take things issue by issue, that is actually welcoming of diversity in thought, from religious gay folk to atheist.

Pipe dream? Probably."


worse than a pipe dream, that is exactly what the original gay rights establishment set out to do, which is why so many of them are still under the delusion that it is what they are actually participating in. no doubt the version you start would end up becoming a tool of the vast right-wing conspiracy eventually... ;)

cmh

Interesting thoughts presented about the concept of identity politics. I have another premise that I'd like to throw out for consumption. I should preface my comments by stating that I am an African-American gay male. What I find from my experience such as it is at 41 years of age is that we have all been aculturated in U.S. culture to this concept that there is one ideal representation for American society and that is to be a straight, white, male preferrably Protestant and upper middle class to wealthy. To be able to identify as such means that you are the "master of the universe" so to speak. You are golden, you are able to have it all. This ideal has also been equated with what should be the norm for American society, i.e., to be truly American you fall in the categories previously described. Our nation is founded on this premise -- one only need look at the pictures of the "founding fathers" depicted in Revolutionary Hall to see who they had in mind when drafting such phrases as "all men are created equal." To be "other than" the norm whether based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc. has traditionally meant that you were less than the norm and therefore deserved to be treated as less than the norm, i.e., some form of oppression or discrimination for those in the different categories. Thus, the emergence of identity politics in which those who have been defined as different believe they must band together to work to be afforded the same rights as those who are considered to be the norm. As an interesting affirming aside, we see this premise behind the concept of "diversity" programs. The basic premise is "how do we in the norm come to accept and allow those who are other than to have greater participation in the culture of which we are a part?"

My observation is that the reason gay, white males have the greatest difficulty accepting their sexuality and then identifying with gay culture is that they have spent much of their life not being acclimated to the concept of identity. In fact the concept is abhorrent to many because to do so would mean that they would have to identify with being "other than." Thus you get the concept that is often promulgated of sexuality being "just one aspect of who they are" as if it is merely an accessory to their identity and not an integral part of who they are. To admit sexuality is an integral part of my identity again means that I have to accept that I am "other than" and nothing in my life experience has prepared me to be "other than." This concept is wonderfully captured in Roy Cohn's speech to his doctor after he has been diagnosed with AIDS from Angels in America. The character is freely able to admit that he has sex with men but he denies that he is a homosexual because to identify being gay means that he would have to accept, because of his own biases, that he is not a part of the circle of influence and power that he so highly esteems. He would have to admit that he is "other than" and therefore, again based on his own biases, is either not entitled to be and/or would not be accepted as a part of that upper echelon.

I am not saying that accepting being gay is easy for anyone, but I am saying that once acceptance happened for me it was easy to accept also identifying with a gay culture or community because growing up black, I am used to being "other than." I have had no choice. Because it is such a visible part of my identity I was placed in the "other than" category since birth. To remain some level of sanity though, I also had to learn that to be "other" is not bad and in fact it can be empowering for leading a richer and fuller life.

Well, that's all for now. Just some points to ponder when you think that the reluctance of white males to join in the concept of identity politics is simply because such groups only reflect the political ideology of some form of liberal extremism. I would submit it goes far deeper into our cultural mores than that. Thanks for slogging through that.

Robbie

My observation is that the reason gay, white males have the greatest difficulty accepting their sexuality and then identifying with gay culture is that they have spent much of their life not being acclimated to the concept of identity

CMH - I'm going to disagree with this sentiment. I think gay white males are the most comfortable group when it comes to identifying with gay culture. Go to any circuit party or gay club, switch on gay programming, and it's generally white males as far as the eye can see. In fact, black males seem far more discreet and subversive when you examine coming to terms with living publicly as a gay man. The Down Low that Keith Boykin and others talk about isn't as extensive with white gay men in America.

It's the politics that are a bit off with the demographic. A lot of identity politics, as you noted, are attended by a pretty built in hostility towards white males.

And that's well and good for certain aspects of social studies. However, when it comes to gay activism, I find these things very much out of place. What binds us together in dialogue on gay issues should be our shared sexuality. Instead, gay activists have this alarming habit of including race issues, gender issues, women's issues, etc. And it greatly detracts from goals of the movement. The factionalization noted in the article I linked directly stems from groups who enjoy the balkanization of people due to differences of all kinds. People aren't just people. They're reduced to their component parts.

The problem with identity politics is that they are bottomless well from which there is no escape. I'm a white male, and even I could get into it if I really wanted. I'm a gay male. I'm an Irish-American gay male. I'm an Irish-American Catholic gay male.

Sub-group within sub-group within sub-group, an abyssal well of distinctions and classifications that are intended to "celebrate diversity" when all they really do is infinitely work to separate ourselves from humanity at large.

It's a unique snowflake theorem wildly out of control, and all it does is lead to argument and fragmentation. Who benefits? The politicians, the racial and gender hucksters, the people with a vested interest in keeping people separate and angry at one another.

(note: the Catholic thing is a cultural distinction, not a religious one)

hank

I agree Robbie. It's easy to stereotype the "upper class, white, golden boy". But it doesn't stand up in the wash. I may have had those advantages(?) myself. But I have always accepted the fact that I am gay, just as I accepted the fact that I am blond (a much more difficult badge to sport). Neither is my identity.

Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)

Robbie, on reading this post a second time, I see you're become a regular Jonathan Swift, wise and witty at the same time. It's a really brilliant post and should get more play in the gay world. Here, you're really at the top of your form.

cmh

Well, Robbie I can see your points. Of course though there is a "but" and that is that I would challenge the implied notion that hostility towards white males is the raison d'etre of identity politics, but in some ways is a by-product of our country's socio-political dynamic.

I think it is difficult for those of us who live in these politically correct, "every depiction of humanity should be multi-cultural" times to think about the decades (really centuries) that the representation of the American citizen put forth both within our culture and to the world was that of a white male, who is straight. This was not even questioned as the normative representation. Look at any form of imagery in magazines, movies, television program, advertisements, etc. The underlying message was to be white is to be American and to be a person of influence is to be a straight, white male. Now you may see it differently but that was very much the representation even when I was child in the 70's. So you can imagine that the underlying message received by those who were "other than" the prevailing representation was that to be so was to be "not quite as American as" and that this in turn could lead to a certain resentment.

In today's world I can imagine that the undercurrent of that hostility may be off putting to white males when it comes to the engagement in the dynamic of identity politics. Why would someone participate in something that seems to have as a part of it's underlying assumption that others who share this aspect of my identity, i.e., being a white male, are at fault for the dynamic (inequality) existing in the first place?

However, I would submit that it is the reluctance to participate, to recognize if not the place then at least the reasons for the existence of identity politics, and the critical reactions you've put forth towards identity politics that the perpetuates the dynamic of hostility toward white males. It is particularly the lack of acknowledgment that often happens when issues like this are discussed. More often than not one will either hear a complete denial of the reality of the impact that the complete obfuscation of the existence of others in the American cultural imagery has on those who I have labeled as "other than" or the complete relegation of responsibility for that dynamic to the ancestors, i.e., I wasn't part of that so I have no accountability to it. It's interesting that there is a willingness to accept the positive aspects of a legacy or inheritance be it monetary, position, etc., but the negative aspects like an inherent hostility that arises from reactions to the behavior of one's predecessors somehow is unwarranted. I am not arguing per se that this hostility is particularly helpful to moving forward in addressing societal issues around equality, but I am saying that the way to move forward is to understand that this hostility is a natural by-product of attitudes and behaviors that have existed for a long time. Rather than being resentful that the hostility is there, it would be so much more helpful if more individuals would acknowledge an understanding that there may be some validity to the existence of this hostility when examinign the cultural dynamic out of which it comes.

hank

The "purple prose" not withstanding, this is simplistic to the extreme, and really insulting.

Jeff

Is it me, or does anyone else suspect that "CMH" stands for Clifford M. Huxtable? I'm jus' sayin...

Robbie

CMH, I'm not averse to a discussion about the cultural dynamics involved in the history of race relations.

However, I am averse to having that discussion in the middle of a gay pride parade. Time and place, you know? My question isn't what identity politics entail. I know what they entail, I've studied. No properly socially-conditioned product of a modern, liberal public education is making it out alive without having a keen awareness of race relations being drilled deep into their noggins.

However, I have always been under the delusion that gay rights organizations are concerned about . . . gay rights. Instead, we get gay groups going on about race relations and women's issues, and a host of things that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

When I give, say, $50 to a gay organization, I don't want any of that money going towards something that isn't strictly gay-related. I don't want to pay for diversity workshops that spend four hours on the glass ceiling for women in corporate America, and then maybe ten minutes tacked on towards the end about lesbian god knows what.

If I want to spend $50 towards a group that has women's workshops, I will write out a check for NOW. The HRC shouldn't be my all purpose lefty ideology campaign fund.

Unfortunately, gay rights groups forget they're gay rights groups, and they wade into all these issues that people like me don't necessarily support. I mean, I consider myself a moderately pro-choice guy, but I find the HRC's abortion shtick really, really offensive. It's absurd for a supposedly non-partisan group representing homosexuals to assume gay folk are all supportive of abortion.

Of course, the conflation of abortion with gay issues is due mainly to female types who confuse their lesbianism with their feminism and have a total inability to keep the two strains of ideology separate.

"But lesbianism is feminism!" some of them claim.

No, it's not. If it is, then gay men and lesbians need separate lobbying groups.

Hell, maybe that is the solution.

Tom

Good reading guys. You guys make some insightful, witty and complex points. I'm a country boy at heart, so no fancy arguments here. I wouldn't give any money to most gay groups for exactly the reasons you've stated. You've hit the nail on the head. I acknowledge the injustices of the past, but the "hostility" I feel as a white guy without obvious mannerisms in some gay groups is way up front. My opinions don't matter because I'm not "different" enough.

Aatom

CMH sounds like he is about to graduate from an obscure gender studies program with a concentration in obfuscation. I honestly re-read several of those run-on sentences and still can't figure out what he's actually saying half the time.

I'm not trying to be mean, CMH, but as a writer who tends to veer toward the verbose himself, I would advise you to say it, don't spray it. People take you more seriously when you say what you mean simply and without unnecessary verbiage.

and I suspect that Hank is probably right.

cmh

Wow I really have made myself a target and points well taken. I would have to say that I don't think there is anything wrong with groups aligning themselves with one another. A culture of discrimination is a culture of discrimination and it debases all of us. So yes, if organizations are trying to create a culture of equality there's nothing wrong with them recognizing that crossing party lines, i.e., a gay rights group working with a women's group on an issue is ok. I know that you may not agree that abortion rights is something that women's groups align with equality issue but they do and there are legitimate arguments for why they do. I really don't feel comfortable with the notion that somehow because you're a gay rights group then stick to just that and you're not allowed to have an opinion on or work with other groups about their issues around inequality in this society.

Though I would guess by some of the comments that my perceptions around inequality and discrimination are probably not shared by the folks here. I'm guessing that the prevailing view is that my perceptions are examples of my victimization mentality perpetuated by the liberal education system that I've come out of. I've even got a bachelors and a masters from two different state schools so I'm really steeped in it.

Let me just ask this. Take some of the thoughts I've expressed to the people of color in your circle of friends and acquaintances and see what their reactions are and get come back with your results. I would genuinely be interested in learning what you hear from them.

wfoster

May I rant again? Good, thanks:

As a gay white male with two sons and a daughter: civil rights first, the civil rights of males generally second, gay interests - and I do mean interests - third. Unless that's the order, I don't see the point. That is of course a personal perspective, but not necessarily special pleading. Nevertheless, generally speaking, in terms of getting somewhere with our interests, I don't see how the vast rest of American society will pay sympathetic attention to particularly gay political activism without that order, and so I don't see the point of paying a dime to agi-prop groups who say they’re fight for “gay rights..” Furthermore, American gays are sometimes painfully parochial. I live in Chile, where this whole conversation would be undecipherable among 99% of gay men. And in Iran? American white gay males should thank the good God for their privileged state.

And Robbie, Democrat vs. Republican is sectarian baggage. I'd recommend a wagon full of ideological baggage to go with your blog group, namely good old liberal, freedom-promoting, anti-buttinski-ism.

Robbie

CMH, I'm not unsympathetic to your views. If you said to me cultural phenomenon within the black community often spring from their oppression through the majority of American history, and the racial perceptions attending that, I'd not disagree with you.

However, risking a Fukuyama pose, will there ever be such a thing as the end of racialism? When? What are the conditions? Can we or should we ever recognize progress and adjust accordingly?

When modern identity activists are using almost the exact same verbiage they were utilizing twenty years ago, something's wrong.

Again, I think there is a victimization mentality, an almost pathological need to feel oppressed that many activists do internalize into their identity. They can't just be black or gay. They have to be oppressed blacks and oppressed gays. Just look at all the gay folk who think we're a breath away from homosexual internment camps. Look at people who think gay rights are worse than ever, when objective data on discrimination laws show more states and municipalities passing gay protective legislation than ever.

But there's this odd need to pretend we live in this static, unchanging world. There's this strange unwillingness to move forward. I've never so many self-described progressive people behave so reactionary in my life.

I know I'm not the only white male out there who reads gay activist literature and frowns because the rhetoric is just plain bizarre and out-moded considering the times we live in.

Furthermore, you ask why we can't form alliances with various groups. Well, the simplest answer is because the only thing gay folk have in common is being gay. Ask a hundred gay folk about abortion, and you're likely to get a hundred different answers. If an organization wants to maintain a semblence of unity in order to be effective, they should stick with what gay people have in common - not what will have them at each others' throats.

Just look at the original article I linked to in my post. None of those gay groups are getting along. Why? Because some of them introduced all kinds of outside issues that have little to do with gay issues, and you'll never get even a vague gay consensus on them.

That stuff is damaging to the movement. I think the article delineates that pretty clearly.

Wfoster - your order is entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, I can be horrified by Iran, but still push for equality in America. Just because two horses are on different parts of the track doesn't mean we shouldn't push them both just as vigorously across the finish line. A gash on the head isn't as serious as ass cancer, but really, I'd rather not have either one if it's all the same.

Jamie

. . . think I'll just go get another drink.

Robbie

Jamie, you don't honestly think you can slip out to the blog bar without bringing me one back.

The comments to this entry are closed.