Just another blog from a thirtysomething sociology, comic book and video game nerd. Make yourself comfortable under my corner of sky. Minority culture to Zombie Apocalypses- its all game here.
Every day I see people butcher the real purpose of "Freedom of Speech". Its not a say stupid things & have no social consequences card. This would violate the freedoms of others. Its purpose is to ensure the government alone cant retaliate for something volitile a given citizen has said.
Other citizens can happily tell them how stupid/awful/wrong they are. Its a falacy I see repeated often and its jarring to see how often people wish it to mean "Sit down and let me say whatever I want without sanction!" No free society would be able to function this way, as some peoples speech would therefore be better and more important than others.
It never seems to stop stupid people from defending other stupid people erroneously, mind.
For a little much needed upbeat music fix? I'm all about M83 lately. Killer killer track.
Now there's a relief. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me... One of the most persistent experiences I've had with online "meet up" sites, and hipster havens like OkCupid is overt and covert racism, biases and disdain generally being wrapped up with a tiny bow and conflated with "preference".
The negative language so prevalent on Craigslist and Grindr seems to signal that the culture of sexual liberation has been replaced by sexual segregation.
Gay sexual oppression is catalogued painfully on the Douchebags of Grindr blog, which sorts prejudiced profiles based on everything from racism and sexism to self-hating homophobia. But even though we see it everywhere, most people are as willing to admit to the exclusionary aspects of their desires as Lindsay Lohan is to submit to drug testing — statements are qualified by “Sorry, that’s just what I’m into” or “No hard feelings, it’s just my preference.”
Sycamore says that while people have the right to say what they’re attracted to, they have a responsibility to watch how they say it. “On the one hand, people are stating their preference, but on the other, these are not neutral terms. If we were living in a culture where everything was the same, it wouldn’t be a problem. But when sexual preference reinforces dominant systems of power in an unquestioning way, that’s when it becomes problematic.”
I don't have enough time to articulate how many ways I think Brian Fischer is a demagogic fool with a penchant for distorting "social science" to suit his rather flimsy case about "them evil homosexuals". What I CAN say about the man in the positive is that his dedication to fearmongering and dehumanizing gay people is unrelenting. If one could harness his outright venom in this regard and use it as a source of fuel we could power the world on it. And yes, monitoring his hate chatter is tedious merely because its so vast. It would seem he spends all day every day ranting about gays, conflating Muslims with terrorists and being the mouthpiece of the Christian right.
Also? Its fascinating how quickly he invokes Godwins Law. How Fischer speaks here, of the imminent threat of the Gays robbing fine Christians of their rights, and "doing what the Nazis did in Germany" is ironic and amusing in its own right; I wonder if he's aware of how highly regarded men perceived as gay in Nazi Germany were...
I think this is actually more telling when you think about the projection some on the linked site (the perpetually clever "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog) touch on. Fischer and people like him are feeling more and more marginalized by this sea change on the issue of homosexuality. The days where its acceptable to lobby bigotry from the comforts of one's pulpit without accountability are fading. This man tirelessly pushes far worse than homophobia (its not fear, its outright hatred) and for quite a while it was a platform that made him credible. Now it casts him in an increasingly negative light. Anyone who seeks to change the narrative, or forces him to veer from his hateful dogma is "persecuting, controlling or violating" his "freedoms". For the first time in perhaps his life he's being forced to justify his bigotry with more than a few scriptures and its simply not holding up. Its a win for equality, and his tantrums about his rights to discriminate based on religion being infringed upon are as fascinating as it is an act of desperation over the perceived loss of power.
One would think the "concerned parents" could conceivably be objecting to Mass Effect would be doing so well before Bioware became more inclusive. Or at very least they should have been. If kids are playing games that are as wohdin rightly suggested are M for mature, their parents SHOULD be concerned. But including content like this (which might I add is about as racy as a benign prime time soap) is only a "problem" provided said parents are neglegent enough to allow their children to play it. Masking blatant homophobia behind the guise of handwringing worry for children is an amusing feint. If we condone or appreciate that a game has content that might appeal to a broader spectrum of players, it may in fact harm the children!
The subtext of arguments like this are often the most telling part.Nevermind that the regenerated futuristic space marine you play as can blow sentient beings up and court inter-species relationships...he or she can also now mack on guys or girls in his party, depending on the players preference. How this is any different from Bioware's other games and their forward thinking inclusive style over the past several years is lost on me. Its a very rational page from sci-fi writers that have the stones to think outside of the rigid confines of our limited culture. We immerse ourselves in fantasy worlds because the ones we live in are barren, restrictive, unwelcoming. So we fling ourselves into our minds eye, into futures where who we are isn't so reductive. Dr. Who's devil may care Captian Jack Harkness speaks to a this idea that sci-fi, especially science fiction taking place hundreds to thousands of years in the future would HOPEFULLY not have the laundry lists of hangups and stigmas that drive some in our culture to misery. Instead the likes of Harkness hail from a time period where our sexual rigidity is "quaint" at best. The way social change works, while arduously slow at times, does in fact mean that somwhere down the line, it will be a non-issue which romantic choices you have in a video game (I only wish it were sooner). It is not wrong to want to dream a world where the universe could conceivably be saved by a well trained, lauded soldier who just so happens to date guys. In the far flung future, let's hope there are bigger problems to keep us up at night than "protecting our imaginary children" from potential plot devices in games they shouldn't be playing in the first place. Horrific implications averted. Children saved. See you in Space, Cowboy.
I would have liked to go my entire adult life without having to stoop to discuss "reality" television in any real seriousness. Class this morning focused on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and ...almost the moment I started breaking down the variations in sexual orientation a woman raised her hand and made a long commentary about the "Real World".
I was more than a little aware of the story. It's been pretty well covered by gay-friendly entertainment blogs. (Heck, if we're to be honest, I used to have a subscription to the site he was on when I was in college...yes, I've seen the person in question naked in real time) If ever a story showcased both the casual affirmation of Kinsey 3's and 4's behaviorally, and the rigidity of the operationalization of sexual identity its this one.
Here's how sexual identity and societal expectations regarding both gender and sexuality can differ drastically. Dustin Zito is young, and apparently identifies as straight. At some point in his recent past, he did some modeling for FratMen- a site that cherry picks young, brawny "All-American*" college aged men to leer and pose suggestively and exude virility and hyper-masculinity (otherwise known as pseudo-"heterosexuality") while at the same time winking and posing for the objectifying gay male gaze at a rather expensive membership charge.
(*read-ambiguously European/"White"-a definite conversation for another post) Essentially, to pander to the archetypal fratboy motif.
This eventually morphed into a webcam centric website where scores of the guys would move to a building and basically fulfill vaugely homo erotic fantasies for the viewership- the lionshare of whom were likely male and identify as gay-which proved to be very marketable despite its softcore tease approach and the coyness with which all of its "actors" presented their sexualities. The professed sexual identities of the participants ranged from the staunchly heterosexual whilst playing around with a more mailable "boys will be boys" wink and flex. And its much this way with the sexual identities of "gay for pay" sex workers; many of whom identify as heterosexual in their personal lives whilst being behaviorally "gay" in their semi-professional one. Its a particularly old story when it comes to profitability and porn, but it speaks a great deal to the variation that exists within ranges of sexual behavior and the operational definitions that we so imperfectly use to define them. This all dovetails nicely with the now timeless Kinsey research, as most people tend to fall in the central limit of the bell curve distribution regarding their sexual reality and merely conform to the social expectations about the sexual identity they've adopted beyond that. In other words, what people do when it comes to sexual experiences and attractions and what people SAY they do, vary wildly. This is rooted in stigma and the archly homophobic social controls that sanction even the merest indication of same sex attraction, but the effects provide a profound and troubling distortion in cultural behavior and identity.
Cut to now, while the Real World, the "reality" show that started it all, indelicately stumbles its way through this incredibly complex social issue. It doesn't help that, Zito, perhaps as uncomfortable with his understanding of his own sexual identity, internalizes and displays when confronted about the prospect of having an openly gay roommate on camera open and abject homophobia. Those of us who were both familiar with the "character" Zito was during his time with Fratpad and the "role" he's taken on while on the Real World were somewhat expectant of a "bisexual horror show". The anxiety and societal discomfort brought to bare on men who express the merest deviation from the presumption of masculinity can be searing in its intensity, but for a man who identifies as straight to admit to having had sexual contact with other men- for money- and then to present himself as heterosexual in our society a difficult pill to swallow.
In my experience, both sides of the Kinsey curve seem to reject the notion that bisexuals exist in earnest, or more aptly that people transition from attraction and relationships both of a sexual and an interpersonal nature from one gender to the other. So much so, that our culture tends to force the duality of adult sexuality as though its inherently inflexible. The lines in the sand are so fixed and associated so rigidly so early that we clutch our pearls when boys aged 5 paint their toenails pink. A lot of this is, as I've alluded to in other posts on the subject, rooted in the cold war propaganda wars that reinforced such hyper-conformity. The result on the individual is the sort of ineternalized self loathing, externalized homophobia and general purpose repression and denial so oddly showcased here. Zito confessed before others "outted" him that he was uncomfortable around gay people and alluded to them being predatory.
The result on the other "castmembers" seems to be outright and blatant homophobia. The girl he was seeing feels "betrayed" and questions whether she should be tested. The rest of the cast seems oddly insistant that his omissions are more damaging and egregious than they are. If we removed the specter of homosexual sex from this senario, would Zito suffer any stigma for incidental sex on camera for money? Likely not enough for people to feel "betrayed" by his not telling them sooner.
More amusingly, I don't find much difference in the "whoring" any of he and his fellow cast mates are doing on the Real World: Las Vegas compared to what he was doing..."showcasing" himself in underwear in a different house in LA. Both cases involve opportunistic, attention seekers looking for their next big break. And while the Real World cast seemed scandalized about the prospect of male/male sex, the next week's preview was all about two hawt girls making out. Ahhh, the mind boggles.
On a less bizarro-land note: Ra Ra Riot's newest album "the Orchard" is to die for. That is all.
(1.) I really miss doing social research from time to time- especially the really relevant things like peeling back the social complexity of homophobia in entrenched "hypermasculine" environments,
(2.) The internalized self loathing involved in some of these stories is staggeringly difficult to read about...to have been on the receiving end of it must be emotionally exhausting, I get why it would be safer to stay closeted for the entirety of one's career...but its inexcusable to put that sort of strain on people psychologically in the long term.
(3.) I really need to make a decision about what to do about school over the next month or so...burning the proverbial daylight.
(4.) I'm dubious about whether or not homophobia in sports is waining as much as the article suggests- I brought this up in class yesterday; or more aptly the scenario surrounding the Kobe Bryant "F-bomb" and the rationalizations were mixed and perplexing. Some students did the "he didn't mean the slur as a slur" rationalization, others , the "everybody in sports does it so it must be okay" argument, and still others the "people in the sub-culture (gay people) refer to themselves as f-bombs...if Kobe was gay would it matter?" *facepalm* We're going to have to reboot this discussion it seems...some of them are juuust on the verge of connecting to the idea that slurs and stigma have a purpose, and that purpose is fulfilled based on context.
I showed the group a few skits from the Chappelle Show, and am curious about whether or not they laugh AT or WITH the joke. Is the marginalized group "funny" or is it funny because racism is stupid? I'll update this as we revisit it in class tomorrow. Internalized self loathing seems a good place to begin. Fun times.
Some Sneaker Pimps to get the day going- "Low Place Like Home"
This is pretty remarkable news, and I admit I was somewhat cynical that- given all the posturing and heel dragging of the likes of McCain and the naysay set- that the vote to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would come to pass anytime soon. I was hopeful, as institutional discrimination is a disgusting affront to what we're all supposed to hold dear as American citizens...but admittedly there seems to be the typical reaction of social conservatives to find less than clever rationalizations for maintaining a very biased status quo. Ever fueling the social closure hypothesis. I find myself wondering now, if in our recent histories, segregationists felt similarly in the face of imminent (and ethical) striking down of Jim Crow. Did the Jesse Helms shrug and retire to his library to brood? Did political lobbying groups threaten those in office that endorsed or propagated these social changes the way the Family Research Council has? Vow revenge and shake their fists in a disturbingly undignified fashion, claiming that Senators should and will be “held accountable”. I’ve never heard language from the Left that even approaches this sort of paternalistic condescension.
My question becomes, “Did segregationists vow revenge and go out of their way to punish those responsible for what they considered the ‘end of the world’?” Likely, but I haven’t pierced that proverbial veil enough to say outright. I find the language and tactics of these far right groups increasingly erratic and problematically aggressive, and their ability to project any pretense of civility towards the groups they actively seek to disenfranchise (i.e- the gay minority in this instance) rapidly evaporating. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” meme is greatly disingenuous as a lot of the rhetoric about homosexuality being a “perverse pathology that ought to be criminalized ” etc that doesn’t pass many, if any litmus tests of ethical consistency. The very reason several of these groups go from being covertly bigoted (which is still concerning, but a person’s belief system even when based on consistent falsehood and fabrication is still their own) to groups on the SPLC’s hate list is because they willfully push forward these fabrications and demonizing rhetoric as though it were true for the whole group. Evangelical Bryan Fisher seems convinced (based on flimsy logic, to put it nicely) that all gay men are pedophiles, in fact, he seems obsessed with the notion and publishes information to this effect constantly.(RightWing Watch has an amusing write up involving Fischer,here ) Anything to advance the glaring misconception that gay people, like black people, like Jews and agnostics are somehow less than and deserve nothing short of differential treatment for not adhering to the expected behavior set of the dominant group.
In the case of DADT it means that it is not only rational as far as the religious conservative is concerned, as gay men are mentally ill perverts who are likely to molest their fellows while they sleep, to hunt down otherwise functional and effective personnel for what they might do in their personal lives, rummage through their things and fire them for whom they happen to love or like, it’s a duty of any God fearing Christian to purge the sinners from their midst. This, in a time when the American military is involved in two wars and military retention is low. It reminds me of an excellent book I read about the McCarthy era called the Lavender Scare, which examined one of the most effective expulsions of gay (or perceived to be gay) employees from State and Federal employment in the nation’s capital and more importantly the socio-cultural mindsets behind them. Much of the ideology that advanced the firing of thousands of possibly gay employees exists part and parcel in DADT. A lot of this comes from the outdated concept that a.) ones sexual orientation, provided it is not heterosexual is something that should at all costs remain hidden, and therefore such an intense secret would be a “national security risk” if enemies discovered it. b.) the myth that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” that gay persons seek to spread to others. The American Psychological Association in its infancy bares some responsibility for furthering the social concept that homosexuality = mental illness, but has since been consistent in debunking this. Much like eugenics, and other pseudo-scientific attempts to justify bigotry in the early 1900s, the lion share of these ideas just do not hold up against scientific research. That said, its almost unthinkable for any fair minded American to put forth their own prejudices and expect them to dictate governmental policy (With the exception of anti-immigration law and, Islamaphobia…on second thought…I take that back.). My personal distaste for persons who wear too much perfume is a personal bias, should I win election and ban perfume in public places, it becomes institutional discrimination. We’ve established that much of the animus towards gay soldiers is based on irrational fears generated by the Cold War era and perpetuated over and over by social conservatives and those who have not given the issue any rigorous empirical consideration. No one is suggesting that one has to alter one’s belief system to serve in the military, but to suggest that one must be thrown out of service for belonging to any particular status in their private lives is the antithesis of American ideology. Fairness dictates that we do not institutionally enshrine bigotry in any form into law and it is with incredible, profound pleasure that I see our society coming to a point where this fairness is becoming more universally applicable. This is another step in the moving, noble journey towards human decency on the whole and I for one am quite pleased to be witnessing history unfold before us.
Bare in mind that the Cloture vote passing means that no more debate on the topic need be heard and that the actual vote can go forward. Our political system works in, at times, confounding ways, but the future of DADT should be decided by the end of the day. Hope springs eternal.
EDIT: As of today, the policy Dont Ask Don't Tell, which compells the military to discharge military personnel it discovers is gay is no longer the rule of law. You've just witnessed civil rights history folks. This was the doing of several brave and tireless activists and soldiers themselves (Lt. Dan Choi for example has worked fiercely and outspokenly with this end in mind and deserves credit for his determination), honorable politicians and the changing winds of American cultural reality. Its also important to note that President Obama and the political climate at present has a lot to do with this victory (as few GOP Senators voted in favor of the repeal and fewer still can discuss gay persons without the loaded rhetoric we've discussed above). This is a profound moment in which we break with antiquated notions of difference and condemnation and start acting as though egalitarian ideals actually mean more than the lipservice so often given. Its a good day for liberty.
As an undergraduate at East Carolina University, and later as a Grad Student in their Sociology department, many times I’d find myself at Southern Poverty Law Center’s website with both a stark admiration of the quality of the research they do, and the inkling that someday, in some way, I’d love nothing more than to work with an organization with the same sort of mission statement. The SPLC does invaluable work monitoring and providing legal opposition to hate groups, and their dedication to civil rights and the civically disenfranchised in our society is beyond commendable. The difficulty with being a steadfast proponent of positive social change is that there are often social and legal constructs long set in place against such progress. Quite similarly, scripture and (false) pseudo-scientific rationalizations were concocted to justify slavery and later segregation socio-culturally, just as Jim Crow was legislated to ensure that the social order/status quo was maintained.
Sociological thought assumes no different when it comes to homophobia. Attitudes towards those that seek to enshrine persons who happen to be gay in a separate and unequal career trajectory should their cloistered lives be brought to light. (I’m looking at you Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) Or are squeamish about anti-bullying legislation if it includes any language “endorsing” homosexuality whilst being draped in the guise of religious freedoms can still in fact be hateful. Discrimination of this nature is institutional, much the way slavery became institutional and anti-miscegenation laws became institutional. When the government adopts the prejudices of the overall society and then seeks to disempower an ethnic or cultural minority group based on these assumptions (i.e- Travel Bans on HIV Positive persons) we have no place pretending that we live in a democratic, egalitarian society where the rights of all are upheld and protected.
What is entirely valid and well said about the editorial I reference above, is that Tim Rutton on December 1, 2010 evidenced all the ways individual prejudices become institutionalized discrimination. He looks at the history of the SPLC and the contrasting organization the Family Research Council and comes away with the analysis that the verdict of the SPLC here is correct entirely because of the defamation and misinformation used to pursue their goals. If the Family Research Council has valid information about why homosexuality in their religious view is a sin, fine. But to present scientifically disproven information (numerous studies bare out that a lot of the rhetoric the Christian right presents about the evils of homosexuality are miguided at best) and/or to conflate an entire group of people with pedophiles hellbent on converting one’s children and destroying the foundation of the family is nothing more than pearl clutching histrionics, not the assertions of a credible research institution.
These paragraphs are key:
Other conservative commentators also have assailed listing the council as a hate group, calling it an affront to protected speech. That is a superficially compelling argument, but it won't withstand scrutiny. It is perfectly possible for a church or an organization associated with a denomination or religious tendency — as the Family Research Council is with evangelical Protestantism — to oppose, say, marriage equality as a departure from tradition and traditional notions of civic virtue without defaming gays and lesbians as a group.
But the council goes well beyond that. Over the years, it has published statistical compendiums purporting to quantify the "evils" of homosexuality. One of its pamphlets is entitled, "Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle." At various times, its spokesmen have spuriously alleged that the gay rights movement's goal "is to go after children" and that child molestation is more likely to occur in households with gay parents. Last week, one of its senior fellows, Peter Sprigg, told reporters on a conference call concerning repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that "homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are relative to their numbers."
Such rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of that with which religiously affiliated opponents of African American equality once defended segregation. It wasn't all that long ago that some of them argued against school integration because, they alleged, black adolescents were uniquely unable to control sexual impulses and, therefore, would assault white schoolgirls. Exhortations against "race mixing" were commonplace pulpit messages short decades ago, though we now recognize them as hate speech. It's past time to do the same with rhetoric that denigrates gays and lesbians.
And this is the eerily familiar aspect of this social conservatism. Society, especially those in more socially conservative periods of humankind, has been uniformly talented at maintaining the status quo, and incredibly creative about creating ways to perpetuate social control. Politicians and now unfortunately powerful lobbyist groups like the Family Research Center are quick in these instances to deem themselves as the arbiters of social propriety and dictate others act accordingly. As Rutten implies, this oversteps the bounds of religious freedom by a great deal, and encroaches on the rights of others to make any decisions outside of those prescribed by said arbiters. If these assertions are made within the confines of a religious institution, they are to be honored and protected, if they make their way into public discourse and policy, the assumption that they’re to be protected by religious freedoms becomes flimsier and flimsier still.
If you and your preacher agree that “the gays” are all the things those scant scriptures say they are, fine. But the day you seek to disempower the rights of other law abiding citizens because of it all pretense of civility and ethicality recedes from view.
I do not begrudge the modern teen in any way, shape, or form. Not only do they have to endure the universal angst and tribulation of puberty in a world that seems to be on perpetual fastforward, but they have to do so while facebooking, updating their twitter pages and operating in an increasingly image conscious, self-obsessed environments. My niece, bless her, stays wired to either her DS, the Television, one of our borrowed laptops, or honing her infuriating Hannah Montana inspired sense of sarcasm-despite the fact that she has no idea what it is... (seriously, you should see her, everything is punctuated by an eyeroll.) Given how much press has been given to how self absorbed and antagonistic we’re being told the modern American tween is, I’m finding myself increasingly astounded by the poise, polish and remarkable self awareness of this little guy. He came upon the quasi-public radar thusly:
On Oct. 20, National Bullying Day, economics teacher Jay McDowell of Michigan's Howell High School was wearing a purple shirt to show his support. He noticed a student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle and asked him to remove it. The student probed McDowell about what the difference was between a Confederate flag and the rainbow flag, the unity symbol for the gay community. McDowell tried to explain the difference, to which the student responded, "I don't accept gays. It's against my religion," according to On Top magazine.
McDowell suspended the student for one day. The school board, in turn, suspended McDowell (without pay) for violating the student's First Amendment rights and for wearing a "controversial" purple shirt. When school officials had a board meeting to discuss the issue, Taylor, from neighboring Ann Arbor, went to speak up on behalf of the teacher.
I had the privilege of watching Young Mr. Taylor speak (via the power of the interwebs) at this school board meeting on behalf of this teacher and will without hesitation say that the demeanor and eloquence of this youngster is, after years of public speaking by way of a pseudo-occupational hazard, far surpassed anything I could compare to at his age. The post has since been removed (Copyright infringement allegedly, I’m dubious however) but the content was what was so amazing. I’m actually quite curious about the outcome, the cause of young Graeme’s speech. It would be a loss if more contentious, well intentioned teachers are jettisoned (especially given how awful the need for teachers are in this economy) merely because they opt to try to do something “controversial” like confronting the growing social issue of bullying in schools. Just as Young Mr. Taylor felt it was right to speak on behalf of those of us keen to do the right thing in the face of conventional “propriety”, I believe its entirely necessary to do the same for the both of them. So rarely in life do we have people willing to step outside of themselves and their personal gain on behalf of others. Rarer still is the 14 year old that pries him or herself from his iPhone long enough to speak on behalf of someone they felt was doing the ethical and just thing. (For him to so aptly invoked Martin Luther King Jr and make a sweeping plea for any and all to denounce homophobic bullying? Above and beyond the call of brilliance) In this boy I see the courage and cleverness so many closet cases and apathetic self servers lack in spades. I see the future, and perhaps all of that poppycock about “it getting better” seems grounded in reality after all… perhaps there’s hope for the world yet.
Update: Young Mssr Graeme was on Ellen today and was awarded a scholarship for his ethicality and courage. Here's to positive reinforcement, feeling a little better about the universe now.
The above, and you'll forgive me being frank, is a ridiculous argument. When a professional organization denies membership to someone it deems outside the ideological viewpoint of the profession its not out of line to reject them. Case in point; Matt Hale, the founder of the Church of the Creator failed to pass the Bar for these reasons alone. His missives about racial superiority were (shockingly) opposed to those of the law board. And now he's doing time for trying to murder a federal judge... yes, its a shame he's not a big and powerful lawyer who had viewpoints would have debased the profession (further) as its against his "freedoms" for the professional body to reject people that don't adhere to their standards professionally. The idea that religious intolerance is somehow put on the line when a profession sets ideological standards for its patently ridiculous. Ethical and ideological standards are an important part of professions like law, medicine and science in order to maintain a level of quality and ensure uniformity amongst the profession. It in fact does harm to both the profession and persons they’ll potentially come into contact with to have, say, a therapist who goes against the school of organized thought regarding treatment regarding sexual orientation, or doctors who ignore standard procedure regarding common medical practice. None of this would work for the greater good.
Nevermind that the entirety of Galligher’s argument is based on conjecture and, thus cannot be empirically proven. Fearmongering and pear clutching at its most histrionic. Professional standards ensure the fair and ethical treatment of organizations providing important services to the public. If one cannot actually BE professional and apply their religious beliefs in their personal lives alone, then perhaps they’re being discouraged from these positions for exactly the right reasons.
Its interesting that the Washington Post is willing to provide the "balanced" viewpoint of the esteemed Tony Perkins (head of the dubiously named Family "Research" Council) in the wake of the epidemic of gay suicides. Sure, yes, further indotrinate the idea that gay people are degenerates and see how much that helps. Something I think its interesting about how gay issues are handeld in the media is that when a gay rights issue comes up, there's point and counterpoint; most of the time provided of someone from Perkins' rolodex. The last word is given to that of the "family value" set, and the news organization calls it a day. Its troubling though how so few dialouges about anti-semitism or racism are presented with counterpoint from Matt Hale from the Church of the Creator... is it ethical or even logical to provide platforms for gay issues to institutions that will adhere to their blind, dehumanizing biases regardless of the reprocussions?
The impressivley documented blog Good As You does an amazing job debunking Perkins editorial barbs:
So yea, in short: FRC's body of work is made up of some enormously jaw-dropping charges, the likes of which unabashedly dehumanize LGBT people and their allies. Charges that have all gone down under Tony's watch/embrace. Yet despite the record, Tony is constantly afforded the opportunity to throw on a suit, fire up the talking point machine, and take to one of our nation's esteemed mainstream media outlets, identified as little more than a "from the right" voice of political dissent. On "Face The Nation." On CNN. And now in The Washington Post's "On Faith" column, where Tony has been granted a forum to peddle his views about homosexuality itself being the reason why so many gay kids suffer, and that "change" through Jesus is the best remedy for bullying/suicide/crimes of bias.
My only pressing question would be what would compell the Post to publish a tirade from Perkins and not one from David Duke (as their biases against particular groups have both made their careers)? What do you make of this, friends and neighbors(s)?
Today is National Coming Out Day. I was having a conversation with a conservative frenimey of mine about how blandly unimportant being out should be, and was struck with how important it is after reading this article.
Undoubtedly, Homophobia is inherent in our culture. Its fostered from childhood on in conjunction with gender socialization and internalized by young men and women who are coming to grips with their sexual identities as they move into adulthood. Often, these men and women are met with an openly hostile world before coming out. Gay people are perverts, or deviants, weak, psychologically unsound, sick and sinful among other things. The message beamed across the airwaves and taught in families, passed around in peer groups and shouted down from pulpits is one that most members of our society get loud and clear. That its strongly discouraged if not aggressively opposed, That ridicule, intimidation and the full brunt of social stigma are tools of the dominant culture in ensuring that homosexual behavior remain as removed as possible from their perception of reality.
Homophobia is such a longstanding component of our culture (the Cold War and McCarthyism fanned the fears of the Lavender Scare to a fever pitch) that it can be argued that it permeates nearly every aspect of it, and often the spectre of it was and is enough to keep people clinging to the status quo. People including parents, teachers and other gatekeepers to our culture.
It is an easy thing to rail against the monsters and the perverts out in the world doing what one is certain is true evil. Its an entirely harder matter to be forced to condemn your friends, children, and co-workers out of hand. That is why I'm convinced that coming out is important because it shatters the illusion that gay men and women are some invisible minority that are conveniently exorcised upon discovery. That Issac Katz comes out in the wake of his father's rather virulent screeds on homophobia may not cure Johnothan Katz of his biases, but it does serve to inform him that homosexuality isn't some vile infection that visits perfect and dispicable strangers. It is about sons and daughters, family and the idea that people are more than who they fall in love with and share their lives with; more than who they're attracted to.
Coming out is about courage and integrity in the face of misinformation and rancorous cruelty. It sends the message to both the apathetic and the vulnerable that there are more people in this world of ours that can summarily be written off as sinful- That we are more than a collection of trite stereotypes. It is about elevation and transparency, about confronting the outdated ideas of a dwindling age. It is about reaching out and destroying more hegemonic paradigms enforced from the myopic positions of our forebears, and decentering the hatred and bias misconceptions perpetuate...
But more importantly, its about him, and him and also him and countless other kids who've been devalued and intimidated and informed they're somehow less than by peers and parents alike. Its about informing gay teens with fragile self images that it gets better, and that they've got it wrong.
