American Dream My Ass

Public settings can be traumatic for many LGBT individuals, as there is no safe way to be sure that where you are going is hate-free. There were many places I have had to avoid when walking my dog in my own neighborhood for fear of my own safety. I can't recall how many times neighboring kids/teens followed me/yelled hateful slurs at me simply because I walked past them. However, for so many LGBT young adults, they face severe discrimination and hatred in their own homes in addition to the outside world.

Heterosexual Privilege #5: I will not be kicked out of my own home due to my sexual orientation.

This is not to say that heterosexual teens are not kicked out of their households, indeed they are. However, being non-heterosexual drastically increases the likelihood that teens will face discrimination in their own households. Unlike households of families who are racial minorities and can talk to their children about discrimination based on race, so many LGBT young adults/children do not have LGBT parents they can look up to/confide in when they are experiencing inordinate amounts of stress from the discrimination and hatred they experience in school/in their neighborhoods based on their sexual orientation. LGBT youth often feel quite alone in their struggles, as their family units, with whom they are expected to turn to in times of trouble, show absolutely no sympathy for their struggles. In fact, mere disclosure of one's non-heterosexual orientation is far too often seen as a burden for other family members, as they must "deal with" with fact that their sibling/child/other family member is "different".

 So many parents feel so uncomfortable with a departure from a 1950's image of the Cleaver family that they ultimately disown their LGBT children instead of working on their own prejudices/hatred. So many of these people cannot deal with their own discomfort in discussing sexuality in general that they instead choose to stop loving their children (or perhaps these parents were never even fully human enough to love them in the first place, as one could argue).

It's difficult to estimate what proportion of homeless youth identify as LGBT, but the few studies that actually address this issue reveal rates of 11-35% (which is enormous, considering the small percentage of LGBT youth in this country). As these adolescents are turned out onto the streets with immensely limited opportunity for financial gain (given that many of them don't even have high school diplomas), they often turn to prostitution, drug use, and drug dealing to actually survive. Moral elitists often argue that these "choices" are never acceptable, but I would wager that those who make those privileged arguments were never disowned by their parents at age 13. It is difficult to  land a job when you don't have a place to shower or clean clothes to wear to your job interview. What choice do you have when you are forced to sleep in a park?

Ultimately, the high rates of LGBT homeless youth further oppress non-heterosexuals as a group, as being disowned at a young age essentially prevents you from getting an education, thus blockading you from entering a career with social power (such as a judge, doctor, business owner, etc.). Preventing LGBT youth from getting an education keeps them out of the realm of public policy/law/scientific research (because apparently you must have $40,000 in order to prove that you're "smart enough" to go to college), which perpetuates heteronormativity in fields that wield social power to create change. Yes, we must all do our part to change society, but a supreme court justice unfortunately has more social power than a sex worker.

Due to the "American Dream" (or nightmare, as I like to call it), we all think we have an equal opportunity to change the world/make a fortune/do whatever the fuck we want to do. We don't. Period. If you disagree, please explain how a wealthy white straight boy with family connections ino every high-paying field has a more difficult time making ends meet than a homeless lesbian latina. I'm serious-- try and explain it to me, because I don't understand the logic. In our society, we tend to hate the poor. We love to blame individuals in this country, because it prevents any real social change (i.e., effort on our part) from occuring. If someone is poor, we say that they should work harder.

Tell me, how can this make sense when in 2005 the average compensation for CEO's of the 350 largest public companies  9.2 million (which often evades taxation, as these are compensations and not official salaries)? If these CEO's happen to be making more than you, is it because they are working harder? I'd like to see what kind of hard work they are doing to earn that much, because so many people in this country perform back-breaking labor to live below the poverty level (or less than a dollar a day, in many places across the world).

Anyway, I digress. To close, I would like to show this image of Pope Benedict sporting major bling, while preaching about living like the poor.

G'night folks!

-Harvs

Interview with an Ally: Four Eyes

Name: Four eyes

Age: 22

Race/Ethnicity: Caucasian

Gender: Female

Religion: Jewish

When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?: I don’t think there was a definitive point where I just stood up and had the epiphany that I was hetero. It’s just an attraction that kind of...happened. The thing is, I feel like defining your sexuality also relies on your experiences. I know I’m attracted to men but that was validated by my sexual experiences with men. Do I think women are beautiful? Of course! If I had a sexual experience with a woman and thoroughly enjoyed it, that would mean validating that I am bisexual [oh, labels]. But until then I’m heterosexual and have known so for a good while.

To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?: I’ve disclosed this to a number of people, including my friends, the men i’ve slept with and the [male] friends i’ve slept with. My parents have known for a while too. Everyone’s reactions? They seem to be pretty understanding of it. 

Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?: Nah. I don’t think loving men with beards is a phase either.

What do you think caused your heterosexuality?: My experiences and my genes. And as it is obligatory to say as a sociology major, society definitely forms the way we look at relationships. With barely any same-sex couples on tv, it’s constantly being pushed into our brains that heterosexual couples are the norm. Anything outside that norm is different and weird. So I blame the media. As always.

Special thanks to Four Eyes for her courage and insight!

*Questions taken from the Heterosexuality Questionnaire, Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977*

-Harvey

Tuesday Bloggaround

New York becomes the first state to pass legislation that will allow trafficking victims to clear their criminal records of prostitution charges.


A teacher is fired from a Christian school for having premarital sex.

[Trigger Warning] Everyday, at least 5 children in the U.S. have their healthy genitals mutilated, including at Cornell University. Liss over at Shakesville covers the story and starts a discussion thread.

See if you can spot the threat to moral values.


A French Trans-woman is mandated to enlarge her breasts before she can legally be considered a woman. Carrie Polansky over at Gender Across Borders gives us the story.

Link Love

We also have exciting news! Two of my pieces were accepted for Blog Carnivals:

My Controversial piece appeared in the June edition of the Carnival of Progressive Politics and is available over at My Political Side, run by the fabulous S. Gaissert. 

My True Blood piece appeared over at the June 20th edition of the Bobo Carnival of Politics and is available over at The Bobo Files.

-Harvey

Prop 8 Update! / United States Social Forum!

Hey readers!

I wanted to give a brief update of the Proposition 8 trail in San Francisco for all those who aren't caught up, but first I want to let you know that I will not be blogging for a week. Instead, I will be attending the United States Social Forum(USSF) in Detroit, Michigan!

For those of you who may not know what the USSF is, I suggest looking into it here. The first USSF took place in June of 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia, and convened over 12,000 people together to begin what has been described as one of the largest social movements in the history of the United States. To really understand what the USSF is, however, I'd like to just backtrack a tad and explain it's origin.

The World Economic Forum was formed on 1971 and meets annually in Davos, Switzerland to discuss the future of the world's global market. For those of you educated in economics, the date that this organization was created may seem familiar. The early 1970's marked a period of drastic economic change in the United States, phasing out of a period of "keynesianism" (named after the British economist John Maynard Kaynes) and into our current governing economic philosophy of Neoliberalism (not what it sounds like).

Essentially, Neoliberal philosophy pushes for mass government deregulation on private businesses, tax cuts for the upper eschalon of society to promote innovation and production, and the privatization of welfare programs and governmental agencies. Anyone who has been following recent news may recognize these ideals in the sentiments and views of the Tea Party Movement that has been recently gaining political recognition. It may seem like the answer to the prayers of the rich (who, of course, do not depend on welfare programs for their survival), but the effects of rampant, unregulated capitalism clearly have its downsides.

Err....where was I? Oh, right, World Economic Forum. Well, each year, this coming together of the richest and most powerful people in the world often culminates in a celebration of Neoliberal capitalism and plans to further its impact and influence across the planet.


But do not be fooled - The economic, political, and social impacts of Neoliberalism (and organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), and World Bank) are disastrous and have been the root of social uprisings across the planet for decades.

Enter: The World Social Forum. The World Social Forum (WSF) convened for the first time in January of 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil as a response to the effects of Neoliberalism. Fueled by the disadvantaged and exploited indigenous peoples of nations across the planet, the WSF has become a prominent force in the search for an alternative lifestyle to Neoliberal capitalism.

Long story short, the USSF was created in the United States as a North American arm of the World Social Forum, and brings together peoples of various socio-economic statuses, occupations, races, ethnicities, nationalities, sexes, genders, sexual orientations, religions, etc. in the United States for a week-long discussion (consisting of actual discussions, performances, environmental cleanups, feasts, etc.) of the current economic and social state of our country. It has been regarded as one of the largest uprisings of oppressed Americans in history, and I am incredibly excited to be a part of it this year!

I will hopefully have some pictures and stories to tell when I return (next Sunday), so be sure to check-in!

WHEW!

Well, that took much longer to explain than I expected. Now, onto business:

Today's Topic: Prop 8 Update!

So, I'm sure many of you have been wondering what has been the status of Prop 8 since the legal battle in San Francisco began? Well, not much. Indeed, the case has just recently come to a close and we are now waiting for Judge Walker's ruling on whether the discriminatory law will be overturned or not. In an article released by the Advocat, Maggie Gallagher, former presidenct of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM....nom, nom, nom!!!), has predicted that the law will get overturned, however she also stated that although it may be overturned at this level, "...millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife, and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well."

Just as a note, aside from her vehement (yet, surprisingly cordial) opposition to same-sex marriage, Gallagher is also known for her appearance on the Dr. Phil show in an incredibly fascinating and controversial episode dedicated to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Although there is a chance that this case will ultimately reach the US Supreme Court, as Vikram David Amar, Professor of law at UC Davis, points out, there may be an equally strong chance that the case will not. It all depends on Judge Walker's ruling of the case that has just concluded.

"If the Ninth Circuit rejects the plaintiffs' challenge and upholds Proposition 8, I would be very surprised to see the U.S. Supreme Court grant the plaintiffs' request to take up the case. As far as I can tell, there would be no conflict among the lower courts on the question of a federal right to gay marriage (no court has yet embraced one), and the Justices in Washington DC would, I suspect, be quite content to let the issue "percolate," as they say, in the states and the lower courts for a while before deciding to address it.

Alternatively, if the Ninth Circuit were to invalidate Proposition 8, but do so in a way that called into question only California's ban on same-sex marriage (by pointing out some uniquely problematic feature of the California scheme) -- but not similar bans in other states -- then it is still possible (though much less likely) that the Supreme Court would stay out of the matter.

The likelihood of Supreme Court review will go up a great deal more if the Ninth Circuit invalidates Proposition 8 on the broad grounds that all same-sex adult couples have a right to enter into marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment, period. This kind of ruling would essentially create a federal constitutional right in the Western states that hasn't been recognized elsewhere; under those circumstances, I think the Supreme Court would have a hard time deferring (or dodging, depending on one's point of view), the issue for long. "


So, although we may have to wait a bit to see the results of this case, those results will be pivotal in predicting the court's likelihood to accept the case for review. Additionally, the number of judges who will ultimately hear the appeal to the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit may also weigh in on the Supreme Court's likelihood to hear the case and their ultimate decision:

"What we can say now is that the Ninth Circuit is a place where it matters a great deal, in high-profile cases, which three judges get drawn; while the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being liberal, I think it is more accurate to say the Ninth Circuit has a lot of smart, confident, independent-minded judges, and a significant (though not overwhelming) number of them are traditionally liberal or libertarian in their philosophy, so that drawing two or three liberal judges on one panel happens not infrequently. So how the Ninth Circuit panel rules in the Proposition 8 case may turn in significant measure on who comprises the panel.

It is also very important to note here that there is one possible step in between the three-judge panel and the Supreme Court, known as "en banc" review -- that is, review by an entire court, not just a three-judge sample of the full court...

...

How might that play out in the Proposition 8 case? If the three-judge panel rules against the plaintiffs and in favor of Proposition 8, the challengers to the ban on same-sex marriage might seek en banc review, but they might not. If they obtain en banc review and lose in front of the group of 11 judges, that loss does more damage to the cause than the loss in front of the three-judge panel; it may be harder to later undo an unfavorable en banc ruling than an unfavorable three-judge ruling. And, as already suggested earlier, the Supreme Court is unlikely to step in if the Ninth Circuit lets Proposition 8 stand, so an en banc ruling against the plaintiffs would likely persist for some time.

If, however, the three-judge panel rules in the plaintiffs' favor and strikes down Proposition 8, then Proposition 8's defenders have little to lose by seeking en banc review. If they obtain en banc review and win en banc, the Supreme Court will probably leave that en banc ruling undisturbed. And if they lose in front of the en banc panel because of that panel's makeup, they probably don't have to worry about having that ruling remaining on the books for long, because the Supreme Court, as I suggested earlier, will likely have a lot of pressure on it to step in and resolve the matter for itself if Proposition 8 is invalidated."

Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court will take the case either way, given that this would be an incredibly important ruling for rookie justices Sotomayor and Kagan (if she indeed successfully nominated to the court). However, one never knows. At this point, all we can do is hope that Judge Walker views Prop 8 as broadly discriminatory and the Ninth Circuit Court, whether via en banc review or not, agrees. Aside from the criticism attorneys Olsen and Boies have received for taking this case up too early, we must all stand in solidarity now and hope for the best.


Thanks for reading, folks, and I look forward to sharing my USSF experience with you all when I return!

Signing Off,


~ Legally Gay

Interview with an Ally: Jason Perez

Name: Jason Perez


Age: 22


Race/Ethnicity: Filipino


Gender: Male


Religion: Non-practicing Catholic


When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?: I guess I have always know I was heterosexual. I was a very sexual boy when I was younger and a bit of a horn dog. Even in Kindergarten I would follow my teacher around because I thought she was pretty. When I was in middle school I had some experience with men, but this turned out to be uncomfortable to me and I ended up thinking of women to get through it and not offend the other guy involved. So...I truly think I have always known I was heterosexual.


To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?: I have disclosed my heterosexual tendencies to most of my friends...and my experiences with men for that matter. I have no qualms about my experiences and feel very open about them.


Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?: As stated earlier I think I have always felt this way... and frankly I like women's figures too much to probably ever feel differently on a physical aspect.


What do you think caused your heterosexuality?: I have no clue honestly. I have always thought girls and women to be pretty and more appealing than boys or men. There is something about a nice curvaceous and voluptuous figure and a bubbly personality that is so appealing. I mean guys are great to hang out with, but from experience they aren't as fun to be intimate with... at least to me.

Special thanks to Jason Perez for his courage and insight!

*Questions taken from the Heterosexuality Questionnaire, Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977*

-Harvey

Happy Father's Day, Burt Hummel!

In honor of Father’s Day this Sunday, let’s talk about my new favorite fictional father: Burt Hummel. Father of Glee’s Kurt Hummel, Burt has proven to be much more progressive then I think any of us expected at the start of the Series. First of all, who remembers when the actor who plays Burt Hummel (Mike O’Malley) hosted Global Guts? (That’s right, 90s kids. You knew he looked familiar, but you couldn’t figure it out.) So now, let’s review why Burt Hummel, and the writers who have created him, are so awesome.

1. He is a father who isn’t afraid to show his love for his son. So often, we hear about ideas of fatherhood centered on stereotypical notions of masculinity which, unfortunately, leave little room for fathers who display a raw and sensitive love for their children. This seems to be especially true of father son relationships, which are usually characterized by a lack of straightforward expression of emotion, and a lack of physical contact beyond a pat on the back or fist pump. In Burt Hummel, we see a man who isn’t afraid to use the word “love” when he talks to his son. When Kurt tells his father he is gay, Burt responds, “I guess I'm not totally in love with the idea, but, if that's who you are, there's nothing I can do about it. And I love you just as much. Ok?” While we would have preferred hearing Burt Hummel state that he has no problem whatsoever with his son’s sexuality, we do receive two important messages here: 1. Kurt’s sexuality is not the entirety of his identity; he is a whole human being who happens to be gay. 2. Burt is willing to make an honest effort to love and accept a part of his son, despite the fact that he doesn’t necessarily understand it. He then hugs son to make sure Kurt knows how much he is loved, a gesture which recognizes how hard it must have been for Kurt to share this part of himself with his father. Although we can see the Burt Hummel doesn’t understand everything about his son, we see him trying like hell to relate, and support Kurt no matter what. It seems like such a small thing, but how often do we really see fathers and sons on television telling each other they love each other and hugging? Not nearly as often as we should. The relationship these writers have created between Burt and Kurt is refreshing. And on a slightly unrelated note, kudos to Glee for featuring a positive portrayal of same sex parenting in Rachel Barry’s parents. Though we don’t see these characters very often, they are obviously loving parents who support their daughter’s goals and dreams.

http://www.limerickmedia.com/Kurt.mov

2. Burt Hummel defines a “new generation of dude.” Despite the close relationship Burt Hummel forms with Finn Hudson when he starts dating the boy’s mother, Burt is not willing to let anything come before the love he has for his son; nor is he going to tolerate anyone put his son down because he is gay. When Finn and Kurt end up sharing a room when the two families move in together, Finn goes over the edge. Given the fast changing circumstances, perhaps Finn is entitled to a breakdown. However, the situation in which Finn finds himself does not give him the right to verbally attack Kurt on the basis of his sexuality. While on a rant about their shared living space, Finn uses the word, “faggy” to describe various items in the room. When Burt Hummel walks in and hears the offensive slur being spoken in his home, he delivers a poignant speech about tolerance in today’s world. Burt drives home an important point which even well intentioned people can sometimes miss: he acknowledges that discrimination against homosexuals is on the same level as racism and discrimination against people with disabilities. Often people ignorantly view discrimination against the LGBT community as a lesser offense, perhaps because it is all too prominent in our culture. Burt also is refreshingly honest and upfront about what it means to use bigoted language against the LGBT community. Rather than cutting Finn slack when he claims that he “didn’t mean it like that” when he said the word, “faggy,” Burt instead calls him out. Burt admits to using the word with his football buddies when he was younger. The important point Burt makes here is that when he used the word in his youth, he ignorantly meant that, “being gay is wrong and it’s some kind of punishable offense.” While Burt admits it took him years to figure it out, he makes it clear that he has come to see the deeper implications of using phrases such as “faggy” and “that’s so gay.” Burt goes so far as to refer to that type of language as “poison,” stating that he won’t allow it in his son’s home. Burt tells Finn he thought he was part of a “new generation of dude who saw things differently, who just kind of came into the world knowing what it has taken [Burt] years of struggling to figure out.” This scene leaves us disappointed in Finn, who is generally one of our favorite characters given his progressive and clique-busting behavior; however, Burt Hummel leaves us with hope that this new generation of dude exists, and will become more prominent. Given the impact that our society has on the ideas we form about different groups of people, in order for this new generation of dude to exist, they would have to be born into a world where they are not constantly bombarded with media telling them there is something wrong with homosexuality. Seeing a father like Burt Hummel gives us hope that this sort of future, while maybe still distant, is not impossible and definitely worth fighting for. Every single member of the LGBT community should be lucky enough to have a father like Burt Hummel.



3. Burt demands that everyone respect his son and treat him fairly. While he is lucky to have a father who makes sure that his home is a safe and comfortable place, Kurt is even luckier that his father demands that his son be treated fairly by those outside of his home, too. While Burt wisely understands that he can’t control the way everyone will react to his son’s sexuality, he does what he can make sure Kurt is given the same opportunities to express himself as those around him. When Kurt is denied his request for a solo in the group’s performance of “Defying Gravity,” Burt contacts Will Schuster as well as the school principal to make sure Kurt is allowed to at least audition for the part. Even though we can clearly see that Burt would rather his son pursue an interest in football, he continues to support his son’s goals within the glee club. Throughout the episode, Burt offers his support, even congratulating Kurt for hitting the “Kool-aid, or High C, or whatever,” when his son is able to reach a high F. Hey, at least he’s trying. In this episode, Burt receives a phone call at his workplace where an anonymous ignoramus says, “Your son’s a fag.” Rather than thinking of himself and the challenges that lie ahead for him as the father of a gay young man in a small town full of ignorant people, Burt’s immediate concern is for his son’s safety and happiness. He continues to be supportive, thinking only of Kurt. While we might expect to see Burt become resentful of the fact that his son’s sexuality has attracted this sort of attention, he instead continues to support his son in his efforts to earn the solo. In the long run, Kurt intentionally fails to hit the note during his audition in an effort to protect his father. However, we are still left knowing that Burt Hummel is willing to put up with all that comes with having a gay son, even if that means dealing with an unfortunately ignorant and hateful society.


So. In conclusion, Burt Hummel is awesome, the writer’s of Glee are awesome, and Mike O’Malley is awesome for portraying such a cool dad. I suppose we can forgive the actor for being a Red Sox fan. Burt Hummel may not be perfect, but at least he’s honest about how far he’s come and how far he still has to go. In the meantime, the best anyone could ask is that he love his son unconditionally. Check. So, this father’s day, here’s to Burt Hummel, one of the most progressive dads to grace primetime television in a long, long time. (Let’s not even talk about all of the other TV dad’s who have repeatedly told their son’s to “man up.”)

Just a heads up, I cannot promise that this will be the last post you will read about Kurt, Burt, or Glee in general.

Peace out, cub scouts.

~Feminist at Heart

Today in Hate Yourself Media.

There are so many many forms of rampant discrimination ingrained in modern society: racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and sizeism to name just a few.

This article points out that "obese" women are much less likely to have sexual partners than "obese" men. I'm really not at all surprised about this finding, given that there is a severe double-standard as to what constitutes "attractive" for men and women. Women are unfortunately held to higher standards of "beauty" than men, and expected to police themselves and other women regarding their appearance. Think about as many popular sitcoms as you can that feature couples that consist of a young, thin, beautiful women and an 'overweight', moderate-looking man.

.... are you doing it? I'm serious! Get out a pen and pencil and make a list.

Okay. Now, try to do the reverse: list as many popular sitcom couples as you can that feature a young, gorgeous, in-shape man and an 'overweight', moderate-looking woman.

It's a bit more difficult to do the latter, isn't it?

Again, this study's findings are not super surprising. Also not surprising was the finding that "obese" women may feel stigmatized in medical settings, and thus not seek needed care.

What did strike me was the response of some of the "experts" who were asked to comment on the results.

Dr. Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, a specialist in psychosexual medicine at a London sexual health clinic, said physicians must talk to obese women about birth control.

"Doctors need to get over their own embarrassment and ask the difficult questions," she said. Goldbeck-Wood was not linked to the study but wrote an accompanying editorial in the BMJ.

Um... Ya think? I would hope that doctors already give the same amount of effort when helping thin patients as they would with 'overweight' patients, but apparently this is not the case. Oh boo hoo. The doctors now have to ask bigger women about sex. These doctors have it rough. *warranted eye roll*

"This is not a heart attack or a stroke...but it's an important quality of life factor and a public health problem," said Dr. Andrew McCullough, an associate professor of clinical urology at New York University of Medicine and director of male sexual health at NYU's Langone Medical Center.

He said the study's findings should provide another reason for people to trim their waistlines.

"It seems like a no-brainer," he said. "If you lose weight, you will feel more attractive and that could improve your sex life."

Oh... okay. "Obese" people are discriminated against... so they should lose weight to make the discrimination go away... right. Or we could examine our own prejudices and acts of discrimination against bigger people. Oh, right. That would actually require effort and understanding on our part... which is just too much work.

Far too often, "overweight" people are assumed to be lazy (without any consideration for other factors in their life that may influence their body shape). I think the real culprit of laziness in this situation are those who are unwilling to reflect upon their own internalized hatred of groups of people.

Does this all sound familiar? It should. So many anti-gay groups use the same kind of "logic" to cure the social ill of discrimination. "They can change! These therapies work! Why would you want to live that unhealthy lifestyle where people will discriminate against you? You could simply be straight and have it much easier!"

While the idea of enjoying heterosexual privilege is tempting, "changing" the individual does nothing to address the larger social issue of hatred and discrimination. Focusing on the individual person and how they can "fix" him or herself is an incredibly lazy solution to a pervasive social problem that does not affect individual people, but actually affect and limit us all.

Fat people and gay men are paid less in the work place, so they should change the way they are to suit our needs. Right... because that makes sense. Fat people and gay people are at risk for developing certain illnesses... so we should recommend that they change their lifestyles to fit the "norm". How compassionate...

In the United States, we tend to have an obsessively individualistic view of the world. If a person if poor, fat, gay, a sex worker, it is "their fault". By keeping the issues of inequalities at the individual level, we prevent real social change from occurring that could not only end discrimination, but could restructure society to end the inequalities themselves. By shaming and guilting people into changing who they are, we can capitalize on this need for services and products that assist in these quick-fixes of "normalization" (that don't actually work). It's the American way, right? We can create conversion therapies, pills, and potions that can make you the way you "should" be, and then charge exorbitant fees along the way. These industries have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the notion that these identities are "undesirable". When the media brings to light a blatant inequality experienced by these groups of people, "experts" jump at the chance to convince vulnerable people who experience inequalities that they can change... for a price.

Oh, and I looked up some info about Dr. Andrew McCullough. He was one of the individual clinical investigators for Viagra. Why am I not surprised? Yet another industry that financially depends on making you feel inadequate. Awesome.

-Harvs

Interview with an Ally: Carami

Name: Carami

Race/Ethnicity: Black

Gender: Female

Religion: agnostic

When and how did you first decide to be a heterosexual?: Being a hetero wasn't a very difficult decision to make. In many ways it was made for me, as from childhood it was assumed by my parents that I would enjoy wearing pink PJ's and that I would like having my ears pierced, and that I was somehow in love with every boy I chose to give a hard time to. My sexuality has always been assumed because of my gender, and since I had no particularly strong opposition to liking men, I went along with it.

To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?: Disclosing my tendency to like men was an important part of bonding for me as a preteen and teenager. Pining over a guy my friends and I all found attractive was exciting and fascinating for us, and it was encouraged to do so...in many ways I think by doing this we were fulfilling the expectations adults had for us at this age. Being infatuated with boys made us feel like we were doing something right, like following the images of the perfect white girls on TV who were falling in and out of all sorts of love with their perfect white male counterparts while divulging the woes of infatuation to their friends. 

Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?: I dont know if I will ever grow out of being a Heterosexual. It is difficult to say. Although it has never been my reaction to find women as viscerally fascinating as men happen to be, I don't want to reject the possibility that my one true love could be a woman. If I meet the perfect person for me, and they also have a vagina, should I deny myself that happiness? The romantic in me says "No". The overly-socialized part of me says "Absolutely." Either way it ends up a tragedy.

What do you think caused your heterosexuality?: What has caused my sexuality is something I often think about. I wonder to what degree its natural and to what degree it isn't. I mean, if my mother hadn't put ribbons in my hair and dressed me in skirts and praised my appearance in them, would I intrinsically feel pretty wearing them? How natural is it for me to be completely unattracted to women? Did I somehow learn that the congruence of a male/ female relationship was absolutely right, or was it already understood inside of me the same way Ive always known that I've disliked pain. Now much do the paths of learning and Nature affect each other here? I simply cannot say. I think Im learning though, everyday that straying from the path of heterosexuality is not something anyone wants me to do. Im getting winks that somehow Im on the right path to my true sexual self.

Special thanks to Carami for her courage and insight!

*Questions taken from the Heterosexuality Questionnaire, Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977*

-Harvey

Semantics

Heterosexual privilege #4: I am not identified by my sexual orientation.

One fine summer evening after finals had ended last year, I went to a friend's house to celebrate the end of the semester. We were on her back porch sipping limoncello, discussing the music video for "I'm on a Boat", feeling free and young and buzzed while bathing in the rare glow that is the indirect Ithaca, NY sunlight. We we're having a gay ol' time...

Then our of nowhere, it happened. The hostess's boyfriend let it slip: "THAT IS SO GAY". No, he was not talking about an Elton John album or a meadow filled with unicorns. He was talking about something that he clearly did not like: a book, film, mixed drink, whatever. The subject of his accusation could have been any number of things. It was how he used the adjective 'gay' in his sentence. He did not use it to mean "Bad Ass" or "Something I want to be someday". He used it to mean '"vapid, uncool, or stupid". His girlfriend did what any good ally would do: publicly chastise him. However, the manner in which it was done was a rather curious event. Instead of telling him that she personally did not like that use of language, she merely pointed over to me and Legally Gay (who was sitting next to me) as if to say, "Look! Can't you see we have a corner of queers present?!" Suddenly, everyone looked at us... and I felt 200% more gay than usual (which is nearly impossible), as if we were an exhibit in a zoo. Did everyone expect our gayness to jump out and bite him? Maybe. That would have been entertaining. I tried to brush off the awkwardness by making some comment about the council of gays not approving, and people seemed to forget about it.

I didn't, though. Admittedly, I'm making this whole ordeal seem very dramatic. In reality, it was over as soon as it happened and I don't think many other people even noticed. Still, I remember that feeling. The sensation that everyone noticed the elephant in the room at the exact same time, and the elephant was composed of me and my friend. I do appreciate the fact that the hostess corrected her boyfriend, but drawing attention to my queerness made me feel... well, queer. Not in the gay sense, but as in the sense that I was the "other".

This situation brings up an interesting idea, though. She chastised him because we were there. Perhaps to pass as an ally in our eyes? I find myself thinking, would she have admonished him had we not been there? Who knows. What I do know is that I don't want people to monitor themselves and others because I am in their presence. This makes me a burden, which is not a title I want to embrace with open arms. I would prefer that people not use this kind of language because it's wrong. Period. I don't care if you're at a pride parade or an evangelical megachurch (although I'd wager that there would be more gays there than one would think), using the title of a sexual orientation to signify that something is of lesser worth is not exactly kind.

Bringing sexual identities to people's attention is an interesting phenomenon. Many times, it can be a great thing. Like, when I'm discussing gay rights with someone and I find out that they too, are non-heterosexual: there's a sense of solidarity. We can relate shared experiences with one another and commiserate.

Then again, it can be limiting and painful. Michael Pakaluk, regular columnist for The Pilot, "America's Oldest Catholic Newspaper", argues in a recent column that Children of same-sex couples should be banned from Catholic Schools because the children might bring pornography into school or advocate for the gay agenda. Yeah, seriously. Dana Rudolph, founder and publisher of Mombian (a blog for lesbian parents), covers the story over at Change.Org and explains pretty succinctly that when she chaperons her first-grade son's class trips, she isn't trying to advocate for same-sex marriage. When caring for a gaggle of 6-year-olds, there isn't exactly time for protesting and activism amidst snack time and making sure they don't run off by themselves, let alone pornography distribution.

Pakaluk's argument that children of same-sex parents would bring pornography into school is the epitome of the tired stereotype that gay = sex. My theory of why gay rights progress has been slow in this country (as compared to other industrialized western nations) is due to the country's puritanical roots. As a rule, the United States is fairly tight-lipped about sexuality and sex education. This isn't to say that sexual objectification and commodification don't exist in out culture. They most certainly do, in droves nonetheless. But, as a country we have a rather difficult time having an open and honest discussion about real sexualities. Instead, anything sex-related is seen as dirty and wrong... and the porn industry capitalizes on this fact. Do you think if young women were actually taught to be open about their sex lives that the porn industry would flourish? Probs not. The insanely lucrative pornography industry depends upon "chastity" of most young women who are taught to fight against their sexual desire. If we stopped slut-shaming women and allowed them to pursue their sex lives, the "Girls Gone Wild" Empire would no longer be so "naughty" or "devious". Given that the industry has built it's image upon being "dirty", if we no longer view sex as "dirty", or a "moral ill", the porn empire would collapse.

I'm not saying this can happen overnight. There are so many factions in this country working against having an open and honest discussion about sexuality and sexual health, such as the National Association of Evangelicals (surprise!). Rev. Ted Haggard was the president of this incredibly influential organization (he met with George Bush once a week when he was still in office)(26% of United States Citizens are Evangelical Christian), who was a vehemently anti-choice/anti-gay leader... until he was caught snorting coke with gay male prostitutes. Whoops! Don't you hate it when you're late to your Stone-the-Gays/Destroy-Women's-Health rally because your gay male prostitute is taking forever to snort his coke? I sure do.

Anywayz, back to semantics. When you limit your definition of someone's identity to one detail (that is often stigmatized in this country), it's so easy to see them as "the other". Before African Americans gained the right to vote in the United States, so many people in power viewed this entire segment of the population based on only one characteristic: skin color. Anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage (which was only lifted in 1967, BTW) sought to keep people in distinct, easy-to-see racial categories so as to make discrimination easier. Opponents of progressive politics at these time periods did not see African Americans as complex individuals who cannot be generalized. Similarly, opponents to progressive politics today do not see non-heterosexuals as brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, lawyers, doctors, artists, janitors, students, teachers, or street-sweepers. They see non-heterosexuals as one thing: deviant, and because of their inability to work through their own discomfort, they ignore any contrary pieces of evidence. They merely keep their eyes and ears open for when one non-heterosexual commits a sexual felony (as if no heterosexual has ever done so), and then generalizes this to the entire LGBT segment of the population.

We are not merely our race, class, gender, sex, body shape, disability status, immigration status, religion, or our sexual orientations. All of these things and more make up who we are, but no single factor defines us as a person.

Okay, gotta go hand out butt-plugs to first-graders. Tata!

-Harvs

Ban Left Marriage!

I ran into this little gem over at Queers United:

Right is right, by definition. The majority is always right. Ban the Southpaw lifestyle!



-Harvey Milk Jr.

Interview with an Ally: Token Asian Friend

Name: Token Asian Friend
age: 21
race/ ethnicity: yellow
gender: young phenomenal woman
religion: protestant, but church is a joke.

When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?: Hmm. While my community is not as uptight as really uptight communities can be about homosexuality, like about 99% of the rest of this country, the environment I was in never gave me the opportunity to think that I was anything other than heterosexual.

I remember in high school when students first started coming out and breaking the mold. It made me question my sexuality. I mean, what could they see that I couldn't? This led me to my belief that heterosexuality and homosexuality just have to be on the same continuum- in other words, depending on the situation, "switching teams" is not as impossible as we think. 

So, I've given it thought, definitely. Yet, at the end of the day I have to admit that men are the ones who make me go "eeee". 

To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?: I'm sure anyone from close friends to professors to customers at my bakery are aware of my heterosexual tendencies, and I announce it freely. Perhaps just as freely as i discuss poop with you. [Side note: Token Asian Friend and I discuss our BM's quite frequently] These discussions can range from sexual encounters to whispers that the guy behind me has a nice ass. 

I can't really remember anyone acting negatively, and i don't find myself molding my words or thoughts depending on the listener's sexuality. culture has been the biggest shaper of my ability to voice my heterosexual tendencies. being a minority in the white upper middle class culture of the u.s. has strangely encouraged me to speak out and be as open as possible with little consequence, or at least little consequence that i actually care about. yet my japanese culture has placed tape over my mouth. i will never ever ever ever feel welcome or comfortable to discuss my heterosexual tendencies with anyone who shares this culture with me, unless it is completely nonsexual or the target whom i am referring to is someone who is that unattainable, such as a boy band or a tv actor. in other words, i can say ichiro suzuki is cute (and he is, you should look him up). yet i can't say that i'd like to sleep with the hot guy in our math class. 

god. complicated. 

Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?: No, i don't think my heterosexuality is just a phase. i don't think any kind of sexuality is just a phase. the word phase makes me think of cell division. But, I go into weird phases where I like a certain type of guy. I think sophomore year I was into Italians. In high school I liked boys who wore baggy clothing from against all odds. Yeah, don't judge me. 

What do you think caused your heterosexuality?: Hm. What caused my heterosexuality... let's see. The phrase "opposites attract"? What's the opposite of pink in this country? Blue. Hmmm... my parents telling me to marry a nice japanese boy. Oh, and disney films. Every princess needs a prince!

So the first step for me was the assumption. Then came the experiences that reaffirmed it for me. The increasing heart rate when I first held a boy's hand my first kiss that made me feel like i was flying, and my boyfriend now, who is just wonderful.

What would it be like if i grew up in some weird twisted world that actually encouraged different types of sexuality? We'll never know.

Special thanks to Token Asian Friend for her courage and insight!

*Questions taken from the Heterosexuality Questionnaire, Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977*

-Harvey

Legally Gay Book Corner: Edition 1 - "Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights" by Kenji Yoshino

Hey folks! And welcome to the first edition of the Legally Gay Book Corner!

Today I will be discussing:

“Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights” by Kenji Yoshino"

About the Author:

Kenji Yoshino is a Japanese American attorney and professor of law at the New York University School of Law. He received his BA in English literature in 1991 from Harvard University. He went on to become a Rhodes Scholar and studied at the Magdalen College at Oxford University, obtaining an M.Sc. in management studies in 1993. In 1996 he received his JD from the Yale University Law School. Before his professorship at NYU, Yoshino was a professor of law at Yale University.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Covering” is an essential guide to understanding the ways in which society exerts a pressure to conform to the “mainstream” – AKA, the white, heterosexual, male, upperclass, Protestant American worldview. Focusing on his own identity as both a gay man and a Japanese Man, Yoshino manages to un-“cover” one of the most intrusive, yet socially acceptable, forms of oppression in the United States. Part personal memoir, part legal argument, and part sociological analysis, this book gives a name to the practice of muting one’s own behaviors and beliefs in an attempt to “fit in.”

So, what is covering? Yoshino has adopted the term from sociologist Erving Goffman. In his 1963 book Stigma, as referenced by Yoshino, Goffman describes covering as the process whereby “persons who are ready to admit possession of a stigma…may nonetheless make a great effort to keep the stigma from looming large” (18). In essence, even if an individual has accepted or admitted to having a specific trait that conflicts with the “mainstream,” they are expected to mute that trait and not “flaunt” it. Using homosexuality as an example, a businesswoman who is an out lesbian may hide pictures of her family in her office and purposefully refrain from talking about her partner or her own sexuality in an attempt to appease those around her.

Yoshino introduces the concept of covering by detailing a brief American history of homosexuality and assimilation. When homosexuality first became a prominent social ill, gays were asked – or sometimes forced – to “convert,” or to change their actual selves from homosexual to heterosexual, attempted through various conversion techniques (most of which have been deemed inhumane and/or ineffective). When society stopped requiring that gays convert, they were expected to “pass” – essentially, to deny their homosexuality and make no public display or mention of their sexuality. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a perfect example of this concept – we will not ask you if you’re gay, but if you are and we find out, its sayonara sucka!

As gays have become more accepted in society and the expectation for passing has begun to dissipate (though it still exists, as does conversion), gays are now faced with a new form of identity oppression – they are asked to “cover.” It’s now okay if you’re gay – you can be out – but don’t “flaunt” it in our faces! The popular television show Family Guy, however satirically, makes reference to such covering demands in their Star Wars parody episode titled “Something, Something, Something, Dark Side,” replacing the famous franchise opening of “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…” with “"A long time ago, when the gays weren't all in your face about it..." Although meant as a sarcastic joke (given that Seth MacFarlane, the show’s creator, is an avid supporter of gay rights), this ridiculous statement actually exemplifies Yoshino’s point quite well. First, they wanted us to become straight. Then, they just didn’t want to know we existed. Now, they know we exist, but they just want us to shut up about it.

Making note of the plurality of views and beliefs one individual can possess, Yoshino asserts that covering demands, then, do not simply affect us in one way. He even states that “…I have come to see myself as normal on some issues and queer on others” (79). He takes this notion one step further in the next paragraph: “This suggests gays can cover along many axes. I believe there are four. Appearance concerns how an individual physically presents herself to the world. Affiliation concerns her cultural identifications. Activism concerns how much she politicizes her identity. Association concerns her choice of fellow travelers – lovers, friends, colleagues. These are the dimensions along which gays decide just how gay we want to be” (79).[Italics as appeared in the book – also, note his use of feminine pronouns rather than male or ambiguous ones]

Yoshino then explores these four points further, examining just how diverse these covering demands can be. The following chapters in the book are monumentally important to his main argument, though, that covering is not just expected of queer individuals, but rather that we all experience covering demands at some point. He devotes entire chapters of his book to the discussion of sex-based covering (such as the demands placed on women to cover their “status” as females in a male-dominated workplace) and racial covering (such as the pressures felt by African American individuals to downplay their “blackness” in order to become accepted in a predominantly white society). However, covering demands don’t end there, for as Yoshino notes, even straight, white, Protestant, men sometimes feel the need to cover.

This leads the reader to Yoshino’s ultimate point of view concerning the face of civil rights in our country today, which is primarily a system of group-based politics. Instead of deciding that any two consenting adults may get married, this right was first protected for whites, then eventually for blacks, even though miscegenation laws were instilled in order to preserve the races. Eventually, those were overturned, but now we’re left to debate whether or not two men or two women can marry. Instead of fighting for the right for two men or two women to marry, doesn’t it make more sense to advocate for laws that allow any two consenting adults to marry?

Okay, so maybe marriage is a bad example (what, with objections to incest and all), but it touches upon the concept of universal equality, what Yoshino believes will ultimately be an effective “new civil rights” movement that is all-inclusive rather than separatist. He references the “melting pot” concept here, and brings out an important point – do we want to be, as we have historically been, a society of individual group-based political bodies (African Americans, Italian Americans, Caucasian Amerians, gays and lesbians, Christians, Jews, disabled Americans, etc.), or do we want to be something greater – a society that has enmeshed all of these identities and their individual struggles, and recognized that excluding any one group from the pursuit of happiness is, to evoke the beliefs of MLK, “…an injustice to all.” It’s quite a profound statement, and certainly an ideal that could not materialize overnight, but it gives us a glimpse into the type of society we could become – a society that actually values “liberty and justice for all.”

Throughout the book, Yoshino provides various examples of Supreme Court cases that challenge covering demands yet fail to recognize that they are as blatantly oppressive and unjust as outright discrimination itself. Although for the most part, this book is a critique of the lagging legal process when it comes to civil rights, Yoshino cautions the reader that law will not be the panacea of all social ills. “While I have great hopes for this new legal paradigm, I also believe law will be a relatively trivial part of the new civil rights” (192). He points out, and I think rightfully so, that the law is limited in its capacity to create change, and that it is in the hands of the people to push forward and make this conceptualization of “new civil rights” a reality. “The real solution lies in all of us as citizens, not in the tiny subset of us who are lawyers. People who are not lawyers should have reason-forcing conversations outside the law. They should pull Goffman’s term ‘covering’ out of academic obscurity and press it into the popular lexicon, so that it has the same currency as terms like ‘passing’ or ‘the closet’” (194).

The “hidden assault” that Yoshino references in his title is something we all need to be aware of as American citizens. The Supreme Court is failing to provide us protections from covering demands in a society whose methods of systematic oppression become more refined and unique every day. “Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights” provides us a look into a world of inequality that we may not have even been aware of, and challenges us to confront such covering demands with an approach that is accepting and universal.

Purchase the book on Amazon!

Well folks, that's all for now! I hope you enjoyed this very first edition of the Legally Gay Book Corner! Look out for edition 2, where I will be reviewing Martha Nussbaum's brilliant book "From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law" - a must read!

~ Legally Gay