thomascwaters.com

Pittsburgh blogger, Sue Kerr has written , in my opinion, a really wonderful post about local station KDKA’s coverage of the recent Larry Johnson/Twitter slur issue. She writes:

My objection is primarily is that this slur was about homophobia.  Johnson dropped the bombs because it is socially acceptable to use that language in a derogatory way.  Derogatory is also what has happened to the term homosexual which has been coopted by the wingnuts to marginalize and reduce our community to our sexuality, rather than integrate us based on our humanity.  We talk about anti-Semitic slurs, racist slurs, sexist slurs, etc.  In doing so, we recognize that that slur itself is rooted in intolerance, oppression and fear, not the identity of the target. Its the beliefs of the one who slurs.  It is Mr. Johnson’s lack of respect for homosexuals (and the rest of us in the LGBTQ community) that motivated/permitted the f-bomb, not the fact that we exist. (Emphasis added by me)

Right on Sue!

Sue and I have had some exchanges about words, meaning and the importance of how and why we choose the words that we do, and I really value the work she is doing here. As Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people continue to seek full equality, there will be greater visibility for both the GLBTQ communities issues as well as visibility for the homophobia and resistance out there. I think this is an important role that bloggers can play by highlighting and dialoguing about how more traditional media as well as new media portray this growing public discourse. Read her entire post by following the link below.

Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents :: “Homosexual”: Sometimes you just have to have a conversation.

Of those discharged under the policy, 36 percent were women, although women make up only 14 percent of troops in the Army, the data showed.

Yesterday I posted about Mary Cheney, her new baby and some of the connections between class and the resistance to LGBT rights of any kind, but especially same-sex marriage. I received several very kind and meaningful compliments for the post, and thanks to those from whom I received the calls and comments. But re-reading the post, I’m not sure I did much other than lay out the questions. Don’t think I answered too many of them or illustrated the points all that well.

Today’s post may end up being similar, and if you have thoughts about the issues raised, please please chime in and share them with a comment. The linked CNN story is quite short and I’ll look for more to better explain this story, but basically it says that more women are discharged proportionately more than men using DADT. This was a big surprise for me, because most (all??) of the high profile cases I’m aware of, are men. Guys like Dan Choi for example. Racking my brain (although that rarely helps) I can’t remember a single high profile/publicized case of a woman being discharged for DADT. What’s up with that? There are probably a few good thesis projects in here, so if you use one of them, please give me an acknowledgement in your published thesis or dissertation.

One thing before I go on, the CNN title is a little misleading: “More women than men dismissed from military for being gay.” It isn’t true to say that of 100 discharges more of them are women. Women are 36% of the discharges. but given that women make up only 16% of the armed forces, this rate of 36% seems very high. It suggests a lesbian is twice as likely to get kicked out as her gay counterpart. Or is that four times as likely… I need a stats class!

Here are some of the questions raised for me:

• Are more women discharged because a disproportionately larger number of lesbians join the armed forces than men? For example, if 100 gays and lesbians join the armed forces, are 70 of them women? Probably no easy way to answer this given the nature of don’t ask, don’t tell. My reasoning here, is that if queer men and women are discharged at an equal rate, then the number of women discharged would be closer to 16% unless more women who enter are lesbians than the number of men who enter are gay. I would doubt this. My guess is that more gay men enter the armed forces than lesbians, or that the rate is closer to equal.
• Are gay men accepted by their colleagues more commonly than lesbians? In other words, while many good and qualified people are kicked out, it might be the case that a number of troops accept their gay and lesbian members, but especially their gay members. Perhaps a gay man is more accepted than his female counterpart and is less likely to be called into question.
• Do gay men, “hide” better in the military than gay women? Is the reason for the disproportionately higher rate among women because their gay counterparts are able to blend in easier than the women are, so that the women are found easier? This may be connected to the earlier question. Is it that they blend in and hide easier or just that others choose not to see them as readily?
• Are the methods for outing gay men and lesbian women the same or different in the military? In otherwords, how is it that most lesbians are discovered , and is that the same or different than for gay men?

I tend to think that there is a role for basic sexism in the equation. Women are a minority within the armed forces and still seen by some, as not belonging there. The levels of testosterone are high among the armed forces, and I would anticipate that many women struggle to be treated as equal, even without the marker of being a lesbian added to it. Straight men love the notion of lesbians as play toys for real men, but the notion that a woman as equal to them, that one is a stretch for many men. Gender roles and forced notions of what being Male and what being Female mean is still a prevailing dynamic in our society as a whole, and would most definitely be at play within a microcosmic and performance heightened arena of the military.

Add your thoughts- add a comment- let me know what you think!

via More women than men dismissed from military for being gay – CNN.com.

The linked article is not the kind of thing I generally post or write about, but today, struck me as very important. During a phone call this weekend with an activist I have the highest regard for, we were talking about the upcoming Equality March on Washington, and the issue of organizing at the state level for legislative change vs a different approach to prioritize for national legislative change instead. I want to write more about my decision to attend the Equality March, and so will touch more on that aspect of it then, but I want to say a bit about why I am opposed to an isolated insistance on national legislative change for GLBTQ issues.

If we learned nothing from the Black Civil Rights movement, I hope we have learned that simply changing a few laws does not make prejudice go away. The path to full equality is made up of smaller steps, with each step gaining some ground. And even with full equality on the books as laws governing our society, the effects of years of inequality still abound. Or look to the fight for reproductive freedom and the battle over abortion. This may be a fight closer in many ways to the gay civil rights movement, or the opposition uses the same religious weaponry to battle a woman’s right to choice  as they do against homosexuality. When an abortion doctor, who operated completely within the law,  can be gunned down, in his church- one has to ask, if achieving some form of legislative win will solve much in terms of how homophobia leads to violence, abuse, and mistreatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. We need laws, and we need cultural change. These two must go hand in hand and each support the other.

But what about underneath the easy-to-talk-about political layer? It is easy to write about how GLBTQ’s deserve equal rights, and having full equality will make a difference in many ways for many people, especially when viewed from a general or almost theoretical perspective. But what are the issues affecting real, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, day to day, in their real lives? What does it mean to talk about a GLBTQ community or culture, especially in relation to the greater society as a whole?

Much of my focus, if you have been reading my blog, has been on PA HB 300, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the states nondiscrimination legislation. And I’m 100% committed to that as an important legislative agenda here in Pennsylvania. But recently, two other issues have been rising to the top of my priority list: Hate Crimes legislation and Anti-bullying legislation, which really seem connected in my line of reasoning. When we allow the use of homophobic slurs and bullying in our schools, we are setting the stage for people to act out violently against anyone seen as different from the norm, and especially gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenders. A hate crime is bullying gone way to far. That is over simplified, but I hope you get my point.

As usual, I have strayed away from the linked article trying to set the stage for it. If we are focused only on legislative advances we fail to see and address the ongoing effects within our communities, that are a result to some extent of the level of homophobia and anti-gay sentiment that we live in 24/7/365. Changing laws alone won’t either fix the problems this has caused nor alter the elements of our culture that are the result of it. So, at the same time as we work for full equality, we must also look at how it has impacted us. The linked article is a very good read toward that end.

Reeuq.com – Gay Social Media Done Right!.

I don’t think we have seen the last of Sarah Palin, and after all of the craziness, and insanity, it can be clearly said that Sarah Palin was good for at least one person- Levi Johnston. Before his involvement with Bristol, he was just your general mediocre dumb  breeder boy. They are a dime a dozen! But fortunately for him, his girlfriend, was Palin’s daughter, and now he is making the most of it. Kinda hard to believe he is squeezing as much publicity out of it as he is. Though to be fair- it isn’t him. He has a manager, a lawyer, and who knows how many other handlers who are making it all happen. He is just taking the ride for everything he can get out of it. I’m not being critical of that. Life offers us a few opportunities. Best to take as many of them when they are offered to you.

For me, I admit this is a great little distraction. I’m not into gossip mags or stuff, but the Palin comedy, is something I get a chuckle out of. I haven’t followed too closely, but close enough to get a laugh now and again. And so today, I started on a URL that was a story about the Vanity Fair article, and ended on the linked post about Levi posing nude for Playgirl. but a few things come to mind that are of the more serious type of thoughts.

It is a shame, the way all of the media hype is being handled surrounding Levi and what he has to say. If there is a shred of truth to it, it is really damaging for the far-right christian conservative notion of Family Values. So, how does a public “Family Values” mom actually make it all work?  Well, according to him, she doesn’t. How much is there to illustrate the fallacy that by definition a right-wing family is better than any other type of family? How many times have you heard that children are best raised with a mother and a father?

There are millions and millions of really great straight-parent  families out there who work very hard to be great parents and raise good families. It isn’t because they are straight that it works- but because they work at it. And there are thousands of gay and lesbians families where equally hard and genuine work happens to raise great kids. But if all the Levi stuff is treated as circus, we won’t have the dialogue about “what makes a family” that could be useful.

I’m a little bothered by the way he is also being used throughout all of this. Maybe the “dumb guy” thing is an act and he is playing us all. But I doubt it. He is being exploited, and I’m not sure how I feel about that.

But my biggest beef, at least with the Gawker post, is the suggestion that Levi can be a gay icon. Why is that? Because he is a dumb jock boy?  Because he is cute? WTF?

In the Gawker  post is a video clip, that is behind the scenes stuff from the photo shoot, and it ends with a conversation between Levi and his trainer about doing the Playgirl shoot. The – what I’d term homophobic nature of it is disgusting. From Gawker:

Funny thing is that Playgirl’s biggest get in years doesn’t have a clue about who reads the male flesh mag. As he and Tank joke in the Vanity Fair video, Levi says, “I’m assuming it’s where a dude poses for women.”

The trainer is asking him about how “big” he is “down there” is this weird way, and he is saying that if he does it the trainer has to be there, and the trainer is, like, no way I can’t see you naked…. This is the type of homophobic bull shit that dumb breeders live by. Grow up kiddies. Gawker ends the post:

Oh Levi, don’t be ashamed to go down the gay icon route. Just wait until June, when you’ll be introducing dance diva Amber at Cincinnati Pride!

If he is, it is because we (the gays) are the stupid asses for our obsession for the dumb straight boy.  What a waste of energy.

Levi Johnston Is Actually Going to Strip Down for Playgirl – Levi Johnston – Gawker.

Yesterday, I wrote about a blog post, where an individual presented a definition of homophobia, and then suggested that he wasn’t one, where I felt the contempt he demonstrated towards gays and lesbians illustrated otherwise.

Well I’m grateful to say, that he replied. I really value when people leave their comments and ideas on the blog. Although he made a comment about “pederasts and rapists” that I find highly offensive. I think my reply was even longer than the original post. So my reply to that is my post for this morning. Check it out.

A point this commenter attempts to make, is that he isn’t afraid of gay men and lesbian women. That may be, although the very definition he presented doesn’t require fear as a component. Contempt is adequate to meet that definition. Still my guess is, his argument may continue that he does not hold gays and lesbians in contempt, only their behavior. This is the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to homosexuality.

This is the tact my father takes, so I’m familiar with it. I think there is reason to question what it means to “love the sinner,” and this position requires a belief that there is a separation between acting homosexual, and one’s being. I tend to believe I am gay- I was born this way, and it is about more than what I do in bed with my boyfriend.

There have been a few replies back and forth, and I think it is overall, a very interesting dialogue. What are your thoughts? Add a comment and allow the dialogue to build.

While GLAAD is not happy with the portrayal of gays in the movie Bruno, we have some real world examples of homophobia, and the degree to which any public display is to much for many homophobes.

EL PASO — Two gay men kissed at a Chico’s Tacos restaurant, prompting guards to eject them and a police officer to endorse their ouster. . In all, five men were ordered to leave the restaurant. They say they were forced out by homophobic guards.

“It was a simple kiss on the lips,” said Carlos Diaz de Leon, a gay man who was part of the group. . De Leon quoted one of the guards as saying he didn’t allow “that faggot stuff” in the restaurant.

One the one hand, the over the top behavior of Bruno can be called into question, but a simple kiss? A kiss in a city that passed a nondiscrimination ordinance in 2003? Someone must have forgot to tell the security guards and the police about that.

The folks at GLAAD are well intentioned, and I totally agree that we need more positive portrayals of Gays in the media. But everyone is missing the point if they think that homophobia is about how we act. It is about the very fact that we exist at all. To miss this point is to be displaying our own internalized homophobia.

For more information:

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2009/07/kissing-at-texas-chicos-tacos-deemed.html

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12814956?source=most_emailed

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4174&MediaType=1&Category=26

OK, this is (I think) the first really questionable or controversial thing I’ve ever put on this blog. Although, a couple of people had a real reaction to the “If Atheists Ruled…” video I embedded over at my other blog, qlatb.com. So, I’m already bracing myself for some backlash, but I had to do it. My partner LOVES this Lily Allen song, and I just think it is so wrong it is hilarious. So, enjoy, or if this isn’t your cup of tea, then come back tomorrow, and I’ll be back to my old self again. I really hope my Dad hasn’t started to read my blog… I’ll go back to behaving now.

BTW- I found this on Mike Tidmus blog. Really good blog!

YouTube – The GayClic Collab Against Homophobia (from France).

Why I Never Use the Word Homophobia in the Classroom (Part Two of a Series on the Pedagogy of Creative Writing)

I’m not an activist. I’m a teacher. Both require some manipulation to yield the desired results. One of those things necessitates an avoidance of a perfunctory embrace of good manners.

Was really intrigued by this blog post today. I am both an artist and an activist, though I don’t consider myself to be much of a writer at all. How funny is it that I’m putting down 1500-2500 words a day and I’m not a writer? Over lunch the other day with a friend, who is really a writer, I talked about using this year of blogging to “find my voice” and learn to write better. So, maybe I am a writer, and am not yet convinced I do it well enough (yet).

As an activist, I am keenly aware of words and the power they carry to sway ideas and opinions. I like to think that the role I play is to counter the language and word images produced by those who seek to diminish the value of my life as a gay man. but I am not blind that I am just a susceptible to adding too much spin on something. Is this the difference between creating fiction and articulating reality?

That’s the sort of talk I want to happen. I’ve made choices in my life. I don’t always know what ones are good, what ones are bad. But I’ve made choices. One of those includes creating a classroom which is full of useful conflict, a decent amount of tension, and the freedom, as long as its done with tact and sincerity, to say what we feel we shouldn’t. To hell with safe spaces!

As an activist, I have a very different goal, to make more space safe for living breathing real people, so are we- the writer and myself fighting each other? Not really. Her space is actually just another color of safe. Rather than quiet the action within, she works to make sure there is enough padding, that no one gets hurt from the actions within. Like when they put mats down for the dancers on Dancing with the Stars as they start to learn to do lifts. The dancers must take risks and try things, so the space  is set to accommodate this though the addition of a safe landing. but here was the statement that really captured me:

Nothing represents anything else. That makes students nervous. “These are just ideas that came from my soul,” they will charmingly say.

I’m still pondering it, yet the first thing to mind is that as an activist, don’t I take the position that everything thing is representational? Wow. Much to think about, let alone the idea of ideas or images coming from the soul.

Check out the blog and I hope you enjoy as much as I did! But let me know what you think, Leave a comment!

Pansy Poetics: Why I Never Use the Word Homophobia in the Classroom (Part Two of a Series on the Pedagogy of Creative Writing).

A Facebook friend posted this and I was really moved and wanted to pass it along too. I wrote last week about the death of 11 year old, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover who hung himself after being bullied at school week after week with taunts and threats. Well, it isn’t really true to say I wrote about it. I was at a loss for words. At 11, could he even have known if he was gay? At 11, I had no idea about my sexuality. I didn’t even know there was such a thing as gay at 11. But today’s kids are different. Definitely more vicious than they were then. He was called gay and bullied everyday. On Anderson Cooper, it said that a girl had threatened to kill him because he was gay.  Jeez, what to even write about this? It is too heartbreaking. So, here is the video I saw on Facebook. This kid is amazing. I hope other kids who are struggling with being gay will find it and hang on. Hang on for that light at the end of the tunnel.

This makes a lot of sense. Homophobia is the outward expression for men who are either unaware of, or in denial of their own homosexual tendencies. Straight men who do not experience homosexual arousal are inclined to do nothing towards gay men, where as straight men who experience homosexual arousal, don’t understand why or are trying to supress those feelings and act out in aggressive ways towards gays.

University of Georgia: “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?” | O (b LOG N).