Dispatches from Left Field: I'm Not Feeling It
This week, contributor Matt' discusses the concept of "gay" identity and it's role in his life.
I look at this column as a challenge every week, because while I am gay and I like to write, I don't see myself as a gay writer. I don't see a contradiction in that either. Yet, each week as I pen Dispatches I am writing to a (I assume) mostly gay audience. I have to be careful to write about issues that are interesting to the LGBT community, but at the same time your tastes vary wildly. So I wonder how one does write to the gay community.
Of course, it's obvious that some topics automatically apply. When one writes about specific events in the gay historical consciousness or about events that directly affect homosexuals, one clearly speaks to that audience. But on other issues the connection is not so neatly drawn. And yet, we are interested in far more subjects than anything regarding the gay part of our lives.
An interesting comment on last week's staff survey helps to illustrate my point. The comment, by Ben64, in response to gay stereotypes, says, in part, I make a distinction between sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual) and cultural identity (i.e. "Gay"). Therefore I do not equate homosexuality with Gayness....Therefore, while homosexuality may be foundational to one's identity "Gay" (as a culturally learned set of behaviors) is not.
If Ben is right, and I agree that he is, then the very idea of "gay" is only temporary--not only in the larger, societal sense, but also, and more importantly, in oneself. Of course, the two concepts are tied--even though I believe I've moved past the part of my life where I let stereotypes define what I should be, even though I consider the homosexual part of me to be only a minor part of my Self, I still refer to myself as "gay," although it is not my defining characteristic.
Gay identity has never been formed outside of oppression. Consequently much of it is a defensive reaction-formation to hostility and persecution. While that response has been necessary and empowering in past decades it is, nonetheless, an accommodation to homophobia. I'm not sure any of us know what "Gay" is outside that confining space. I think it is very important for us all to have a discussion about whether or not that is "false consciousness".
So what does the concept of "gay" mean to us? It seems to mean little to me. I am certainly homosexual, but other than the stuff I do with my boyfriend, homosexuality plays a very small role in my consciousness. When it comes to writing, I typically write about policy, planning, or transportation, places where I'm in my element. As I pointed out last week, I don't fit many stereotypes, but that's alright because I'm just being myself.
The basic premise of The New Gay is that gay stereotypes don't represent us. We are much more than the society makes us out to be. But if "gay" really is just a social construct designed to explain or name or identify people of the one gender who are attracted to people of the same gender, then I wonder if it's even possible to really write to our demographic. I mean, clearly people are reading posts here at TNG (mine included, I hope), but these are posts about our life stories or our ideas. They're here because they represent one of us as a gay individual or they espouse an idea important to the gay community. I assume that the largest portion of our readership self identifies as gay.
But why do we read about this subject? Even though many of us probably have reached the stage of acceptance where being gay means no more to us than our left- or right-handedness, we still seek out others with similar stories because they are also homosexual. I think this indicates that there is something that binds us together as a community. Perhaps there is something to "gay" that is beyond a social construct developed to cope with oppression. Honestly, I'm not sure which it is, and that is one reason it's often so difficult to churn out Dispatches.
It is clear that our common homosexuality binds us as a community just as race and religion can, but less clear is the relationship between our image of "gay" and our image of ourselves. Honestly, I'm not feeling it, when it comes to gayness. I like ABBA as much as the next fruit, but it's not because I'm gay, it's because they made good music. But I don't feel gay in any other sense than my attraction to men. I gather that I am not alone in this sensation, however, I still can't quite wrap my mind around this separation between homosexuality and gayness - even though in my gut, I believe it to be right.
Picture at top by wallyg on Flickr.
45 comments:
Is "gay" a "false consciousness?" Admittedly I've never heard that term before, so I'm approaching it with a handicapping ignorance, but I would like to share my opinion that, while "gay" has not been formed without oppression, I don't believe people who might identify as gay have historically NOT formed communities. To use a trite aphorism and mix-up a metaphor, "birds of a feather flock together," and even the ugly duckling didn't feel at home until he settled with other water foul of a similar ilk. So while "gay," a lexical demarcation, may need persecution/oppression to form (and I would argue it does), I would say that a queer community needs only intra-social bonds to form itself.
I find attempts to dismiss or diminish the term "gay" very troubling. After all, even this web site is called The New Gay, and not The New Non-Gay or The New Anti-Gay. Furthermore, I do equate "homosexual" and "gay". When I came out to my family, I said I was "gay" and that I was born that way. No ifs, ands or buts.
I think we've let outsiders decide what the word "gay" means, rather than defining it for ourselves. I don't like dance clubs, Madonna, high fashion, fruity drinks, show tunes, home decorating, or figure skating. I do like punk and world beat, wearing brown hoodies, reading books, and watching lacrosse. But I am still GAY. We each of us have to decide what being a gay person is for ourselves. But if someone suddenly ditches the word "gay", as in "I'm a homosexual but I'm not gay", what is he or she really saying? That being "gay" is somehow inferior, despicable, loathsome.
Have some pride, and reclaim and redefine the word "gay".
In response to landoftrolls, as well as the post, I seperate gay and homosexual, but to me, homosexual denotes sexual acts between members of the same sex and gay describes the life that comes from bringing emotions into that formula. I don't think that that diminishes "gay" (which may be why I didn't see the post as doing so either). Equation of gay and homosexual, especially given how evangelical "outsiders" have defined what homosexual means, has its own set of problems.
*Throw Up*
I'm sorry, are you about 20 years old? Because this is what all 20-year-old gay writers tend to write. I guess its age-appropriate.
Rejecting the "gay" label (which is about as universal and bland as any label) diminishes every homosexual. Its as if you're trying to claim some higher ground, if even subconsciously.
"When it comes to writing, I typically write about policy, planning, or transportation, places where I'm in my element." - Of course, nothing screams "I REJECT THE GAY LABEL" than planning or transportation. Urban planning is just another label for fag. I bet you abhor architecture and good design...oh, wait.
I think we should start labeling everyone who says they reject the gay label as a "cocksucker." Especially celebrities.
It seems like every 10-15 years there is a drive to establish an "alternative gay" identity, which is what I presume The New Gay is attempting to do.
From my limited knowledge of history, bears and the faeries are among the sub-groups that rejected the mainstream/commercial definition of gays. White Crane is a publication that comes to mind.
What I find interesting is that even among these groupings of "alternative gays," there is not of collaboration. Basically I think people want to have their own niches and believe they are part of the "real" gay spirit.
Get in where you fit in, I say. As long as you're having sex with someone of the same gender, you are going to be considered gay, so trying to distance yourself from the term is a losing battle in my opinion.
Kind of like the progression that went from
Colored to
Negro to
Afro-American to
Black to
Person of Color to
African-American
I mean, come on, what's the point?
I have no issues with the "gay" label. I'm gay, you're gay, and I feel confident in saying that most of the people who will ever read these words are gay. I get a bit annoyed by people who make assumptions about the music I listen to, the places I hang out, the people I associate with, and whether or not I'm a fan of Broadway based solely on my sexuality, but so does everyone who has ever been hastily associated with one stereotype or another based on some facet of their existence. That's life.
Some of us fit into the mainstream community more than others. Some of us like beer, sports, and punk shows more than cosmos, Cher, and Fashion Week. There's nothing at all wrong with either - it's just a matter of preference - but preferring one or the other does not make you more or less gay. I don't think anything on this site is meant as a slight to the gay community at large, because if anything, we're just an extension of it. If we want to carve out some space where we feel a little more at home, then so be it. I'm all for it.
You all sound really angry and defensive. And you're all missing the point. No one is making a value judgment that "gay" is bad or that "gay" has to go and a new category with a new name be erected in its place. Relax. I think Matt is trying to understand forces beyond our control that form identity and let us pretend it is organic. Nothing happens in a void. Matt is looking for ways to expand the definition of "gay" in ways that do not compromise our subjectivity.
What's wrong with reclaiming the word "homosexual"?! And don't give me the "clinical" crap. If you can reclaim "queer" you can also reclaim "homosexual".
re: anonymous @ 4:16pm
The "progression" you speak of is purely cultural. American Blacks have defined themselves differently over the past 80 years but their (biological) race is fixed. Similarly, "gay" identity is fluid and temporal while (biological) homosexuality remains fixed. Are you trying to argue "gay" has remained unchanged? A Kubrikian monolith around which we all dance like confused hysterical monkeys? Gay can be anything. Homosexual is one thing.
re: adam isn't here
no one has said gay is "meaningless", certainly not me. why is it so frightening to open up the term to mean more than it does now?
you can't compare straight identity to gay identity when we live in sexual apartheid. one is the result of privilege, the other is the result of intense bigotry, persecution and hatred. they have both evolved under very different circumstances and for very different reasons. would you also say racial identity for american blacks is the same as it is for whites?
"homosexuality plays a very small role in my consciousness", for one. "being gay means no more to us than our left- or right-handedness." to get specific.
i just don't buy that. i'm all for challenging conventions and experimentation, but pretending that your being attracted to people of the same gender "really doesn't mean that much" is just stupid. of course the fact that you're attracted to men affects the way you think, the way you act, the way you relate to other men, the way you relate to women. in short, WHO YOU ARE. and sexual dynamics affect every straight person too. because sex, and how we express ourselves sexually, is REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT.
oh, and my response wasn't really to your comment but the post in general.
re: adam isn't here
true but, as i see it, matt's post isn't about how we ourselves feel we define gay identity. it's about how that identity has been constructed very narrowly for us through homophobia and our reaction to it.
I am angry. I freely own my anger. Being angry is a part of who I am. I'm not just angry about homophobia, but a whole host of issues. If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention. I like to believe I'm paying at least some attention.
We are in an ongoing struggle. It isn't simply for changes in laws. It is for complete acceptance by society at large of our sexuality, our relationships, our gender-bending and our selves. We have a right - a duty, perhaps - to remain angry until this acceptance arrives. So while I remain angry at society at large - at the straight-dominated world - I am even angrier at gays who deny being gay. It is traitorous. It is stabbing your own people in the back. Do you actually believe the straight world will accept you simply because you try to eschew the label "gay"?
At best this theorizing of "non-gay homosexuality" is mere intellectual BS, the queer studies equivalent of Alan Sokal's essay explaining that gravity is a social construct (but without his mocking intent). At worse, it shows the evangelicals and their ilk that we hate ourselves, so by all means come on over and convert us, because we are ripe for the picking.
Grow a pair (testicles or ovaries), embrace the nomenclature and redefine it for yourselves.
re: landoftrolls
I think anger is constructive and necessary. I also think we agree on some very important points. Nonetheless I think you misunderstand me and much of what Matt wrote.
This is not about denying anything, least of all being gay. This is not, as you say, about hoping the "straight world will accept you". This is about loving being gay and refusing to accept what the straight world needs and expects “gay” to be. I'm angry too. Like you I'm angry at gays in denial but I'm also angry at gays who insist on keeping us the The Gay Box by perpetuating this minstrel show.
This is not an "ongoing struggle...for complete acceptance by society at large of our sexuality". Fuck that and fuck "society at large". We need to accept ourselves and acknowledge our true diversity first. That means gays like you need to accept that some gays like me have outgrown the limiting confines of the same old gay and need it to grow and become more inclusive for all of us, including guys like me. That seems to be something you are unwilling to do. For if I love being gay but find gay identity claustrophobic and confining I threaten you and am forbidden to speak. It's like the gay police will take me to gay Guantanamo. If there is no room in the gay community to interrogate and expand who we are then a lot of us will go away uninterested with volleying the same old impotent rage.
1) I do not think anything or anyone “gay” is bad, and 2) I do not seek to reject them. I do feel constantly gays hate and reject me for not being exact kind of “gay” they prefer and need me to be. So here are MY gay needs: I need a “gay” space that is inclusive of us all, that does not make me feel like an outcast for not being “gay” like everyone else. That space should be WITHIN the gay community and that is what I am here arguing for. But if that makes you, and gays like you, feel angry or threatened then never mind because your gay needs are more important than mine.
You seem to object to expansion, diversity and inclusion. For if I love being gay but find gay identity claustrophobic and confining I threaten you and am forbidden to speak. It's like the gay police will take me to gay Guantanamo. If there is no room in the gay community to interrogate and expand who we are then a lot of us will go away uninterested with volleying the same old impotent rage. You seem to want to keep “gay” within its defensive boundaries. I am not for The Gay Box.
I’d rather live as myself (whatever that is or will be) than contract and disfigure my identity under the imposition of your needs and comfort level. It’s a shame that we can’t both find enough "gay" space within the same community.
My opinions and statements are being misrepresented. I have stated plainly that I do not want a shrunken, reductive definition of "gay." I have stated plainly that I do not fit the supposed gay norm in appearance, tastes, talents, experiences, etc. I want every gay person to define gay for him or herself, based on who they truly are, rather than trying to fit a supposed "gay" mold.
What angers me, in addition to the sheeplike behavior one often finds among gays (which is really no different than the sheeplike behavior we find among all human beings), is that some people want to reject the word "gay" as if it is hopelessly tainted. That in my opinion, is caving into society at large. Calling yourself "homosexual but not gay" is only one step away from calling yourself "ex-gay" in my opinion. It's not just handing the enemy a knife to stab us with; it's wielding it yourself.
Be yourself, and be yourself proudly. Show the world that you in your uniqueness also represent one possibility of what "gay" is. I hope this clarifies my position.
Thank you, it does clarify your position.
I sense you think the term "homosexual" is derogatory. Is that true? Here's where I'm coming from: I think one can be an out and avowed homosexual committed to progressive politics and same-sex rights without accepting gay identity as currently constructed. After all if you're cool with your sexuality but feel uncomfortable with the confines of "gay" identity why not just be who you already are instead forcing yourself to assume an identity that feels uncomfortable and unnatural?
We should not be forced to sacrifice our deepest sense of ourselves, our identity, to straight bigotry or gay conformity. The way I see it unconsciously embracing and perpetuating bigoted straight stereotypes IS as you say "to reject the word 'gay' as if it is hopelessly tainted". We must claim that territory for ourselves.
When I read Matt's post I sense he's saying we should either reject or expand "gay" not for straight people but for ourselves. The point of this whole discussion is that "gay" has, in large part, been defined by straight people's bigotry. The idea to change or jettison "gay" has nothing to do with pleasing and satisfying bigoted straight people. It has everything to do with satisfying ourselves with no consideration whatsoever to the needs of straight people.
Speaking for myself I'm happy being a homosexual alone but it'd be real nice if I could be "gay" in a crowd of like minded others who'll have me.
Further points of clarification: I do not think "homosexual" is derogatory. I think it is synonymous with "gay". I am gay. I am homosexual. It is the same thing. Those who call themselves "homosexual but not gay" do so because they do not want to be associated with the gay community. To me that is the same as saying, "I don't like the way human beings behave, so I'm not going to call myself 'human' any longer." BS. Prove to the world, to the gay community and to yourself what gay is - that it is something unique in your case, as it is with everyone else who is gay. Be uniquely yourself and gay at the same time. Admitting to the label is not accepting a straitjacket.
You can call yourself whatever, but if you are homosexual you are gay. You can tell the world "I'm homosexual but not gay", but you could still be beaten up for being gay. Nomenclatural sophistry won't change that. If you are homosexual but deny being gay, you are de facto attacking gay people.
re: landoftrolls
I respect your opinion but please do not tell me what I am or how I feel. I speak for myself only.
I believe that there is a profound distinction between homosexual and gay. That it is also possible to be both but not always likely. To understand my argument you must first understand the distinction between sexual orientation and cultural identity. If we expect that women's consciousness and black identity have progressed since the 1950s how can we not expect gay consciousness and identity to also change?
I don't think we have to agree and I'm not here to convince you I am "right" and you are "wrong". I have heard and understand your point of view.
And actually, no one is going to beat me up, trust me. I've been in a few fights in my time and have also defended gay men from attack. Like you, I'm angry too and I defend myself and others.
re: Anonymous 6:18-- A Kubrikian monolith around which we all dance like confused hysterical monkeys? The answer is clearly YES.
Look at the reactions! Matt simply raised the idea that different people might define a social construct differently. People, he only made a suggestion, but if you define yourself by some prefabbed definition of "gay" that's been crammed into your head, you may have missed that. In his very first piece for TNG, Matt said, "Since I came out, the gayborhood has been a part of my social construct" and that "[gayborhoods] play a vital role in the 'gay lifestyle,' whatever form that may take." Face it folks. This guy has been consistent since day one.
Matt is only challenging people to think. He is simply pointing out that we have options. We no longer have to jump on the big gay bandwagon if it's not a good fit, and the mere suggestion has folks freaking out. So, Yes, the organ grinder plays the music, and the monkeys dance.
I am a homosexual because the orientation of my sexuality is toward the same gender. Gay is a series of lifestyle choices. However, the two have become interchangeable, and Matt is doing something that terrifies the dancing monkeys. He is asking us to look at who we are independent of the labels. I am amazed at the staunch resistance to even considering the idea, and the zealotry with which SOME people in this thread are blindly clinging to "gay." I would add that the erosion of gayborhoods is an indication that the so-called "universal" definition of "gay" is becoming increasing irrelevant. Same sex couple are raising children, moving to the suburbs, going to PTA meetings, and to church. Some would rather go camping than to the bars. We don't have to live in a certain area or engage in specific behaviors because we are homosexual, but the dancing monkeys are apoplectic about the idea that the organ grinder might stop playing his music.
Wanna see "hysterical" Try this: "We live in sexual apartheid." Are you serious? "intense bigotry, persecution and hatred" Really? Dude, where do you live? … Iran or Egypt or some country where they are still publicly hanging homosexuals?
Wanna see "confusion"? adam isn't here said, "because sex, and how we express ourselves sexually, is REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT." Really? So was I heterosexual the two years I chose to be celibate? Was I living a lie because I chose to filter out the guys who only wanted to have "REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT" sex? And if YOU think "how we express ourselves" is so important, then why do you have a problem with Matt's choice? Why can't he just be himself? Seriously, which one is it?
land of trolls--People who feel powerless, weak and believe they are victims are "angry." If your basement is flooding do you stand there and be angry or do you fix it? Ever wonder why the woman at the grocery store is so rude? It's because she feels powerless, and that makes her angry. Why are people on the right so cocky and arrogant? It's because they win all the time. They got tired of being angry, got organized and started winning. Gay and angry or gay and winning? You have a choice.
Anonymous 2:3-- You say Matt is 20-something and doing something that is predictable for guys his age. If, as you say, "Rejecting the "gay" label (which is about as universal and bland as any label) diminishes every homosexual," then, I don't want to be part of your Gay community. Let's pretend like you're right, and Matt is trying to define who he is and is in need of some friendly advice. Your response? Anyone espousing his idea, which you admit is part of the process of coming to terms with being a homosexual, should be called a "cocksucker?" Instead of offering guidance and support you mock him? Wow, what a sense of community. Shame on you!
If being Gay means I have to shit on members of my community instead of help, be an angry powerless victim, have self-imposed limitations dictate where I can live and go, and define myself by REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT sex, you can keep it! I refuse to be a dancing monkey. I'm with Matt.
All the gay haters who post on this site lead me to ask the question: why are you here? If you don't want to be called "gay" or associate yourselves with people who embrace the label "gay", why are you reading and posting comments to a site called The New Gay? It isn't "The New Non-Gay", nor "The New Anti-Gay". I am here, personally, to share with the gay community, critique when I feel called to do so, and hope that the community and the world at large will improve. I'm certainly not here to attack the community. Other than to spread the hate, why would anyone come to this site to attack the gay community?
re: Ed
Great comment and I thank you for weighing in. One point, when I said:
"we live in sexual apartheid...of intense bigotry, persecution and hatred."
I refer to a history of attack, murder, bombings of bars, of not being able to adopt children or teach in schools, of being fired from jobs for being gay and the list goes on. The last 50 years have been hard and have forged much of gay consciousness.
Even today we are despised freely as a threat to marriage, cannot serve openly in the military and we are still killed and beaten in the streets. I'm sure you remember the young gay men who were attacked and murdered in DC in the past few months. I'm saying this kind of terrorism creates a fear based victim mentality that most gay guys cling to defensively.
The mere thought of critically re-evaluating "gay" terrifies them: it's all they've got. Younger men do not have this fear but see a better world. Let's hope they do something about it.
re: landoftrolls
No one is here to attack anyone so why would you bring that up? Are you defensive, angry, threatened, insecure?
If you don't fully understand the concept of NEW Gay then what are you doing here? What is it about "New" you do not understand? I guess we should all leave and shut down this conversation because you don't like it. People like you shut down communication and dialogue and I, for one, and offended and sickened by your passive aggressive performance art.
And don't give us that "non-gay" or "anti-gay" line because you know that is bullshit.
Great God, I feel like I am talking to a wall. I have consistently argued for an expansive definition of "gay" based on our individual integrities. I want NO ONE to squeeze themselves into a predetermined "gay" mold, but rather to allow the shape of their individual lives to determine what "gay" really means. And I have said NOTHING different from that throughout this discussion.
When a person says "I am homosexual but not gay", they have given up on the community, they have turned their backs on the community and have at the very least stepped out of the way while the rest of the gay-hating world continues its attacks. This gives credence to the ex-gay arguments. They, too, are telling you to turn your back on the gay community. They love to see this kind of internal strife and loathing of the community.
Rather than attacking the gay community, I would hope that people would expand it, allow their uniqueness to determine what "gay" really means, and give no ground to the ex-gays and their evangelical enablers.
And if you feel you cannot accept the label gay, what are you other than non-gay or anti-gay. That isn't bullshit - that's definition.
I agree with Ed. If comments here represent the "community" then who needs it? Most of these guys attack, mock and judge Matt. This is the gay "community"?! Where do you guys get the energy to hate each other so much?
"Confused hysterical monkeys" indeed. Fuck this.
re: landoftrolls
Actually, responding to your comments has felt like talking to a wall. I really understand what you are trying to say but you have demonstrated no desire to understand any viewpoint other than your own. Even your last comment, offered as a clarification, still judges others who think differently. You have accused those who disagree with you of hating, attacking, being inhuman, being in denial, of stabbing the gay community in the back, of colluding with the religious right wing, etc.
Can you make a critique that does not involve demonizing others with cheap personal attacks?
I mean...how arch.
Anonymous 5:03 pm
I can only assume that you haven't read any of my columns or previous posts and do not know that I am an African American gay man. Otherwise, I can't imagine the circumstances under which you would think you need to inform me about oppression. I don't say that in an offended, "I am challenging you" way. That is not the case.
I just completely disagree with you on principle and your borderline hyperbolic assessment of our oppression because 1) The omnipresent victim mentality in the Gay community and the accompanying sense of entitlement is a relatively new cultural phenomenon. During the 80s as our community was eviscerated by HIV/AIDS, we fought! During the 70s, when they tried to put padlocks on our closet doors, we fought! 2) The "older" gay men I know who survived the 70s and 80s think that gay men in our 20s and 30s are "a bunch of fucking pussies." and 3) It's annoying as hell to me that any LGBT person would make analogies between this community and the African American community. WAIT!!!! BEFORE YOU GET MAD KEEP READING!!! When people in the LGBT community make the comparisons, they don't look at the victories of the Civil Rights Movement, they latch on the to victimization of the Jim Crow era. "See, we are oppressed just like them."
Matt and landoftrolls are right. Gay as a construct is becoming optional if not completely obsolete. We are blending in and public opinion polls overwhelmingly support us on everything BUT same sex marriage. So how can we scream terrorism and apartheid when Ellen is on TV everyday? Openly gay individuals are members of Congress and Mayors? Show me examples of the same during Jim Crow and apartheid.
re: Ed
I see. So being an African American Gay man removes all ignorance of oppression? There are plenty of marginalized people, plenty of singly and multiply jeopardized people (including myself) who don't know it all. I don't know a single young gay men who can tell me about Gran Fury, Marlon Riggs or Peter Staley.
Judging from your quick review of the last 30 years it sounds like someone does need to inform you about oppression. Full disclosure: I am one of those "older" gay men you talk of. The victim mentality is not new. It's been around gay men it seems forever but at least since the 50s. Skyrocketing HIV & STD infection rates were and continue to be a symptom of that mentality. And, as long as were comparing bonafides, only some of "us" fought AIDS Ed. Most of "us" disdained the activists. I know because I was there getting arrested in the streets and meeting every Monday night at ACT UP on West 13th Street in the Village.
In terms of analogies between marginalized communities there are obvious and clear comparisons to make. No one owns the civil right movement.
Anyway, if "Ellen is on TV everyday" everything must be fine.
jesus ed. you're the spazz here, not me. of course being celibate didn't make you heterosexual. i honestly have no idea where you got the notion that i was suggesting as much. but i AM saying that the fact that you were celibate (presumably by choice) was undoubtedly an important thing for you. it was part of who you were (presumably), and i'm sure affected you in ways beyond just the absence of sex. i was just calling bullshit that "homosexuality plays a very small roll in my consciousness". i don't believe that, because i think sex (and i mean the whole concept, not just the act) is really fucking important.
oh, but i do agree with you about that sexual apartheid thing. made me giggle. everyone needs to calm down a little.
"I can only assume that you haven't read any of my columns or previous posts and do not know that I am an African American gay man. Otherwise, I can't imagine the circumstances under which you would think you need to inform me about oppression."
--Ed
How dare you imply being black trumps all other oppressions? That anyone who is not black doesn't know oppression? Sorry but unlike most TNG readers I don't have enough knee-jerk white liberal guilt to accept that. I can't imagine the circumstances under which you would think no one has suffered more than you.
Gentlemen, please calm down and breathe deeply. Anon @ 9:01 PM (just now), how did you read into Ed's reply that being black trumps all oporession. He didn't say that at all.
Maybe we all need to take a deep breath and reread everything people have written here while trying to imagine that they are being whispered and not shouted.
Where does this propensity to read bile into other people's comments come from?
re: Michael
please go back and read the comment again. to bring up you are black just to say you don't need to be informed about oppression is to imply blackness as the denominator of all oppression.
but you are right and i agree. we all need to take a deep breath.
Hey Ed, I love the Ellen on TV every day thing.
So extending your logic I guess when Diahnn Carroll starred in Julia in 1968 everything was ok for blacks...
and I guess that when Sanford and Son, Good Times and The Jeffersons were on TV in the 70s everything was just fine for black folk...
and I guess when the Cosby show was on TV in the early 90s everything was great for blacks then too...
And now that Barack Obama (thank god) is President of the United States, and on TV every day, the black civil rights struggle is over and racism has ended.
I don't want to be "borderline hyperbolic" but would you prefer self-indulgent complacency?
DANCE MONKEYS DANCE!!!
You are clinging so tightly to your identity politics and victimization that you can't even be rational long enough to read what I wrote. And if all you want to do is holler and complain, then dance monkeys. Dance.
Go back and read. I made my statement about race in the context of the comment to which I was responding. Unlike a lot of the posts where people have to go back and say,"Oh, that's not really what I meant. YOU didn't understand," I was explicitly clear. Anonymous 5:03 was lecturing me about the status of oppression like I am a disinterested simpleton. I said I AM AN AFRICAN AMERICAN GAY MAN. Did you see the GAY part? No, because you are preconditioned to see only the things that legitimize your choice to be a victim. Think about it! If I am Black AND gay, doesn't it make sense that I get the oppression thing from both angles? In fact, if the Tribe of the Dancing Monkeys stopped to ask questions, you would know, that as an African American man, I have NEVER been oppressed a day in my life. I have experienced racism as we have all experienced discrimination. I have been saying that from day one. But anytime I put Black and gay in the same sentence the dancing monkeys turn it onto a fucking competition. I say we need to be talking to each other. You prefer to yell. Fine.
As a gay man, I do not have the right to marry my partner, and I want to do something other than whine and bitch about it. I have written about that as well, but the dancing monkeys don’t care about the facts.
Really, the degree to which the Tribe of the Dancing Monkeys refuses to see anything other than how bad they’ve got it and how right they are borders on pathological. Do you agree that "apartheid" is an historically accurate word to use to describe the oppression of the LGBT community? That has NOTHING to do with race or sexual orientation. It is about historical fucking accuracy. But the dancing monkeys are so married to the identity package they found on the floor the day they came out of the closet, they can’t see anything but what they’ve been spoon fed for decades.
Tell me, at what point during apartheid in South Africa did Black Africans have any of the rights LGBT people have EVER had through out history? Ellen being on TV is not an example of things being okay for us. It is an example, as I said, that the comparisons are not analogous. If you can't see that, you are beyond help. If you CANNOT see that having openly gay and lesbian members of Congress makes claims of terrorism and intense bigotry seem hyperbolic, then just keep on dancing.
YES GAY PEOPLE ARE BEATEN AND OPPRESSED! Why the fuck do you think I don’t know that? Oh, it’s because the dancing monkeys don’t believe in gay black people. So what does that make me? Clearly you feel the need to explain to my ignorant ass how bad gay people have it. Why? Why don’t you think I know that I can’t get married to my partner. Why is is that you think I don’t know that our registered domestic partnership is not treated the same way as a marriage? Do you think black people didn’t get the memo that gays can’t openly serve in the military, and I need you to explain that to me? No one is debating that genius. That is exactly why people don’t listen to you or take you seriously--even LGBT people. You have the audacity to fucking lecture me. But you won't even take the time to read that Matt has been consistent since day one, as have I. You see race and freak out. You don't take a second and read, to put things in context.
The Tribe of the Dancing Monkeys is a wet dream for our opponents. They can trot you out, press anyone of your many buttons, and then sit back and watch you destroy yourselves. You talk about "terrorism" and people think of 9/11 or Oklahoma City or Afghanistan. They think of our wounded soldiers, some of whom are homosexual, coming home and not being able to get help from the VA. Although they cannot serve openly, the do their fucking jobs. They defend our freedoms, and you trivialize their sacrifice. While you whine and complain, they sacrifice their lives and the freedom to be openly gay, the same freedom for which they are fighting. Been out to Walter Reed or done any volunteer work for them? No, you sit at your computer and be angry and complain.
When you say terrorism the public thinks about them. They don’t think of the openly gay Chairman of the House Banking Committee, who is currently one of the most powerful men in the world. But you don’t get that. You say "apartheid" and people see mobs of police officers and government officials dragging black Africans out of their houses in the middle of the night and beating them to death in public. They think of mass grave filled with the bodies of women and children. They don’t think of DINKs, who have one of the highest household income levels of any demographic in the nation.
But you don’t care about reality. You have to be oppressed. You don’t care that your emotional reactions are blinding you to the fact that I am not debating or challenging the idea that the LGBT community is oppressed, but 1) I want to do something about it; and 2) you damage your own cause when you complain about things that cannot pass the test of junior high school level logic.
I am just telling you what other people already think. Using those highly volatile and loaded words are patently bad choices. NO ONE takes you seriously. The media seeks you out to put you on television, because you will make the most incendiary comments and people sitting at home will laugh at the show being put on my the dancing monkeys. But be my guest.
BTW--my last comment WAS NOT directed at adam and landoftrolls.
Ed - thanks. The problem with the online world is that everything gets blown up really big, ZOMG!!!1!, and next thing you know half of us, myself included (sometimes), are running in like Leeroy Jenkins and blasting away (look it up). My guess is that when we all meet, and it's probably only a matter of time, we'll have a beer and laugh it all off. When we see other human faces rather than words on a screen, we calm down. This is actually an ancient phenomenon. I'm not a big fan of the Pauline epistles, but one part sticks in my mind, where he admits he was bold in print and humble when face to face. I think that's probably true for most of us. We still hold the same deep-seated values, but we express them more diplomatically when we are face to face.
landotrolls We've met. I was the guy taking photos at the TNG outing at P Street beach. I of course remember you because you had on a name tag, and I have really good photos of you (wearing the name tag).
I'll admit that I am more of a verbally slap the hysterical (my perception) person than a let's sit around hold hands and sing person.
I will take your lead and also admit that I am not used to feeling oppressed. Before I fell in love with my partner, I didn't care about gay marriage. ENDA and DOMA weren't important to me either. I have always put African American in front of gay, and as a black man, as I said earlier, I have never felt oppressed a day in my life.
I am completely unfamiliar with the idea of not being able to get access to my rights immediately. I HATE it that I can scream DISCRIMINATION at the top of my fucking lungs, and nothing will happen. I will admit is right here and right now, for me, as a Black man in the US, if I scream discrimination there are tons of people who will come to my aid. It's not like that in the gay community. Or, I have yet to experience or witness it.
If I yell discrimination, I FEEL like there are a ton of people who will sit down next to me and yell with me, but I don't want people to yell with me. I want people, who are as impatient determined as I am to come to my aid the same way Black people would come to my aid.
Actually, I am going to save the rest of this for a column, but thanks for your post. If I hear you screaming, I've got your back! ou can count on me coming to help!
"Tell me, at what point during apartheid in South Africa did Black Africans have any of the rights LGBT people have EVER had through out history?
--Ed
Apparently you don't know much about gay history Ed. And that makes the rest of your rant irrelevant. Gays have not even had the "right" to exist in most of recorded history.
Yeah, I saw "the GAY part" of your comment. We kind of assume you're gay if you're here Ed. But thanks for so emphatically and hysterically pointing out you're black and gay because I have never known, met or read anything about any black people, or any black gay people, in my entire life.
The only person freaking out over race is you. Again, I don't have enough reflexive white liberal guilt to give you such a wide berth.
The word "apartheid" means separation or segregation and was modified by the word "sexual" before it to create a term with very specific meaning.
Ironically I created the monkey reference you have enjoyed using so much. It is also ironic that it is precisely adam and landoftrolls with whom you actually disagree but have spared your comments.
Anoymous 1 & 2
I am bored with you. I have answered your questions repeatedly. Everyone but the two of you seem to understand the reason I mentioned my race. But you react to the words "African American" just like every other dancing monkey. At this point you are seriously just embarrassing yourselves. So just dance monkey. Dance.
Feel free to have the last word. Yawn.
Ed
Have you read the entire comment thread?
No. You have not answered any of my questions. You have been very comfortable dismissing others, angrily telling them what is wrong with them and why they're hopelessly wrong implying you, of course, are correct and have superior knowledge of the situation. Emotionally histrionic personal attack is not intelligent debate (see Rush Limbaugh). But I was not really expecting answers from you. I've known many people like you who are very good at subjective analysis but don't have much to say beyond that...aside from personal attack. "Dancing monkeys", "borderline hyperbolic", "fucking pussies"? I can only imagine your reaction if I had called you the same. It's kind of like intellectual arson. Drop some confrontational rant, dismiss others and then walk away refusing to answer the nuanced, more difficult questions you raise. I have observed that while conservatives have the problem of condescension, liberals have the problem of arrogance. If you want us to treat your comments seriously you must learn to treat those you debate with equal seriousness.
Okay Anonymous 8:05, you got me. I'll bite (and read this with a smile on your face, because I am not taking this nearly as seriously as you think I am. I think the dancing monkey thing is hilarious. I just don't share your dire view of the world and the imperiled status of the LGBT community. Sure, we are oppressed, but I choose to focus on our strength. I know that we will rise to the challenge and defeat our opponents. So, there is nothing about which I need, want or desire to be bitter. If I am guilty of anything, it is knowing that I could press your buttons and finding humor in it.)
So, which one am I? A condescending liberal or an arrogant conservative? "Histrionic"? and you say you know people like me? No, you really don't. Because 1) I would have this same conversation with you face-to-face; and 2) You would see that I am laughing the whole time.
If you think I am angry, you are are completely off base, but we already know that. Plus, how am I supposed to take "anonymous" seriously? You remove your humanity by not using your name and say things to me that you would never say to me in person. Take a look at the quotes below and tell me that you guys didn't go a little bat shit:
One of you said, One point, when I said:
"we live in sexual apartheid...of intense bigotry, persecution and hatred."
I refer to a history of attack, murder, bombings of bars, of not being able to adopt children or teach in schools, of being fired from jobs for being gay and the list goes on. The last 50 years have been hard and have forged much of gay consciousness.
Even today we are despised freely as a threat to marriage, cannot serve openly in the military and we are still killed and beaten in the streets. I'm sure you remember the young gay men who were attacked and murdered in DC in the past few months. I'm saying this kind of terrorism creates a fear based victim mentality that most gay guys cling to defensively.
To which I said, "I am an African American gay man. Otherwise, I can't imagine the circumstances under which you would think you need to inform me about oppression. I don't say that in an offended, "I am challenging you" way. That is not the case."
Notice how I said I wasn't challenging you? Notice how I identified as both black and gay? All I did was ask why one of you felt the need to provide a pedantic lecture on oppression. I think I have it covered on both fronts. What's wrong with that?
Then one of you say, "I see. So being an African American Gay man removes all ignorance of oppression?
Another of you says, "How dare you imply being black trumps all other oppressions? That anyone who is not black doesn't know oppression? Sorry but unlike most TNG readers I don't have enough knee-jerk white liberal guilt to accept that. I can't imagine the circumstances under which you would think no one has suffered more than you."
Michael points out to both of you that, "how did you read into Ed's reply that being black trumps all oppression. He didn't say that at all."
One of you says, "please go back and read the comment again. to bring up you are black just to say you don't need to be informed about oppression is to imply blackness as the denominator of all oppression.
but you are right and i agree. we all need to take a deep breath.
Then I said, "Think about it! If I am Black AND gay, doesn't it make sense that I get the oppression thing from both angles?
Then one of you say,"But thanks for so emphatically and hysterically pointing out you're black and gay because I have never known, met or read anything about any black people, or any black gay people, in my entire life."
Then one of you said,"Well Ed, why the fuck do you think we don't know black people are oppressed? Clearly you dropped the race card and seethingly mentioned you are an African American gay man because you expected that:
1) we think everyone here is white, gay and male
2) we would somehow treat you differently, more reverently after that revelation than we had before
That betrays your low expectations that we're all self-absorbed racists. Oh, and your "borderline hyperbolic assessment" is intriguing."
And, finally, "If you want us to treat your comments seriously you must learn to treat those you debate with equal seriousness.
So, show me where I did any of the things you claim I've done. I'm not worried about you taking me seriously, and I don't dismiss you because I am arrogant or whatever else you choose to say about me. I dismiss you because you show absolutely no willingness to discuss the topic I raised. Some gay men become hysterical when the issue of redefining "gay" comes into play because it threatens their sense of being entitled to be a victim. When I raise the issue, I get lectured on why gay men need to feel oppressed and how bad it is for us. I don't subscribe to that school. So, I make the point that I am both Black and gay. We can skip the oppression lecture, cause I've got it covered. It is reactionary to ASSUME that because I say I've got it covered that I am implying that you don't.
So if you read this and still think I am the one who is being insane here, so be it. But don't project your angry suffering victim crap on me. It doesn't fit.
I am not dismissing you this time. I am letting you know that I would like to leave this exchange because it is no longer fun for me. Have fun!
Sorry, forgot one thing. No, I do not think being black and gay means I know everything about oppression. However, I suggested you read some of my columns to know that I do in fact have more than a basic knowledge of civil rights issues. I have said that there is no difference between civil rights for black people and LGBT people. There is only one set of civil rights and they apply to everyone.
Considering my positions on the issues are very public, I DO think the things you say about me are silly. I can't take them seriously. The only thing you've said that might come a little close is that I do have a bad habit of occasionally being arrogant, but that only pertains to one issue that I can't mention in polite company.
I'd like to thank everyone for their comments. We've had quite a discussion here this week. I'm always happy to generate a dialogue, and this column was far more successful than I ever imagined it would be.
In case you haven't seen it, there is a related post submitted by a TNG reader now on the site. It was posted this morning. The author, Kyle, reflects more on the issue of "gay" as a concept. His post is well-written, and I recommend reading it. You can find it at: http://www.thenewgay.net/2009/02/g-y.html.
In closing, I just want to make a few notes. Columnists are not supposed to respond directly to commenters, which is why you haven't heard from me thus far. Based on the lively discussion that we've had, I wanted to clarify a few things I said and see if I can draw some conclusions based upon our discussion. Please keep in mind that I'm not responding to any one of you, but to the thread as a whole. I will not chime in again.
Also, do not take this to be the closing of the thread. If any of you out there have the energy to keep it going, by all means, be my guest.
So, with that in mind, I want to point out that I am gay. I call myself gay and do not foresee that changing anytime soon. I have nothing against using the label "gay" to refer to homosexuals, the LGBT community, queers, fruits, or any other demographic which chooses to be called as such.
This post was not intended to be a diatribe against "Gay" or "gayness". This post was about my struggle to speak to you with a gay voice, when in my mind I feel only like Matt (that is, the way I've always felt), not especially gay.
I also hoped to evoke a discussion on what "gay" would look like if it could be formed outside of oppression. Right now, as Ben64 said, we can only see gayness as it has developed within that environment, and until we can be bred out of captivity, as it were, we'll never know what gayness would look like running free on the prairie, to extend that metaphor.
And as I said, this is something I'm still working to understand. I rarely write about things I "know". If I know them, they're just not worth a discussion. But I don't think I know all that much. I certainly "think" a lot of things and hold many "opinions", but knowledge is a slippery thing which is often intangible. Based on this conversation, I'm already revising how I think about things. While my attraction to people of the same sex does not seem to play a large role in my consciousness, I understand now that this is not a universal feeling. I apologize if I offended anyone by comparing it to left- or right-handedness. I only intended to suggest that gayness matters to me when I'm checking out a hot guy on the bus, but not when I'm bored to death in class. Similarly, you might not think about being left-handed when typing, but you would when writing or hailing a cab. Then again, you might not even have to think about it, since it is what comes naturally.
But this debate has also confirmed some of my suppositions and expanded what I have to think about as I continue to work to understand "gayness." Namely, the reactions shown here regarding oppression confirm that the danger of being Outed do play a large role in our identity. So many comments revolve around the idea that gays are in a fight for their very lives in addition to their rights suggests that oppressors have played a larger role in our societal development than I originally realized.
Thank you all for your comments. I know that I have made some progress toward understanding, and I have all of you to thank for that. Please keep up the dialogue, both here at TNG and in your lives. And feel free to keep the thread going here.
re: Ed
I too am an optimist and have been resolutely for the separation of gay and homosexual...for years.
However, that does not mean that for one moment I pretend that there is no such thing as bigotry against both gays and homosexuals. Lesbians and gay men are the objects of harassment and violent crime every day in this country. Our forgetting or changing the meaning of "gay" is not going to change that fact.
Every quote of mine you have used is actually a fact Ed. I am not overreacting to anything.
And you transparently dropped the race card in response to my "pedantic" "oppression lecture" to demonstrate your superior knowledge of oppression. Why else would you have brought it up Ed?
Post a Comment