Ah yes... the luxury of being politically apathetic... many straights I know admit to not really give a flying fuck when it comes to politics. The word "politics" itself is a rather value-laden, "dirty" word which can often invoke imagery of corrupt politicians who scream at each other until they turn red in the face. When you're in the politics biz, you will be hated. It's unfortunate, but true. It's damn near impossible to appease everyone, and those that do are probably incredibly vague and noncommittal when it comes to important issues for fear of pissing people off. Frankly, it's "cool" to not care. This generation of digital natives is unfortunately encouraged to be apathetic by peers who love to criticize, but will not admit to having positive feelings over something. It's much more difficult to publicly love than it is to hate, especially when you're young and self-conscious. Those that make strong, bold statements about a person, idea, place, etc. run the risk of pissing people off, which is decidedly "not cool". In my experience, the "cool" kids in high school were the ones that had absolutely nothing interesting to say.
Back in my early blogging days, I had a livejournal account throughout high school, where I stumbled to understand more about my awkward self and my even more awkward life. On one occasion, one of the "cool" kids talked to me online to tell me that he read my livejournal, which made me feel super flattered. I didn't particularly like him, but I swooned because he was one of the "cool" kids, and was giving me attention. After careful inspection, he informed me that it was deep. I thanked him, to which he corrected me by saying "being deep isn't cool". Yes, he was serious. I look back on this now and wonder if it was maybe his idea of a nice gesture... one cool kid to a nerd, telling him his secrets about how to be cool... or maybe he was just an asshole.
Anyway, I digress. Having opinions is seen as a bad thing... particularly in high school. After recently learning about the many inequalities that exist in our world today and reflecting on discrimination I have personally experienced, I now know that I cannot afford the luxury of being politically apathetic. Perhaps my peers who enjoy heterosexual privileges can afford to do so because they enjoy many financial, social, and legal benefits that I do not (hence one of the reasons for writing this blog).
Besides the whole having-opinions-thing, there's the whole being gay thing. In contemporary U.S. society, gays are considered inherently controversial. For this year's superbowl, CBS rejected a commercial for a gay dating website that featured two men kissing ZOMG. The nerve of those gays, thinking they can kiss on television! CBS did, however, air a commercial for an anti-choice group, Focus on the Family.
Okay, let me stress here that CBS rejected a non-political dating website commercial and approved of a commercial from a very political organization. Many well-intentioned people who are sympathetic to my argument noted that if they "air some commercials like that, they should air all." Please note: a gay dating website is not rallying to immediately change legislation, while an anti-choice organization is. The two should not be placed on an equal political playing field, because one of which is not even trying to be political. I could possibly understand if they decided to deny a commercial asking for the repeal of DADT, but dating? Come on. Dating is hard enough without being considered a political statement.
It's not just gays kissing, either. Somewhere, deep in the DNA of all gay people is the gene for political controversy which prevents them from being "family friendly". Just ask Johnny Weir, three-time U.S. skating champion who was very popular in this year's Winter Olympics. Weir was rejected from Stars On Ice in March because he was not "family friendly".
Nevermind gay people who raise families. They obviously don't count. OH right, they mean traditional families. You know... like on Leave it to Beaver! The middle class white family with two happily married heterosexual parents (of which the wife is expected to stay home and cook/clean/care for the children) who aren't particularly interesting and two cisgendered heterosexual children who always seem to be getting into g-rated mischief! Yeah, Tradition!... because throughout all of history and across all cultures, all families raise their children in this exact manner. If they don't, well... then they aren't real families. What? The Etoro Tribe in New Guinea don't have little league and clam bakes and boy scouts and apple pie? Well then FUCK THEM. They must be rejected from both Stars On Ice and CBS commercials. Huh? U.S. Women worked outside of the household during the second world war? We should probably alert the Texas Board of Education so they can tear those pages out of their history books.
(please note my sarcasm)
Don't even get me started about the phenomenon of new stories that cover a celebrity's coming out process garnering more media attention than the Iraq war and the healthcare debate combined. It's ridiculous how much we care about these "scandals" in the U.S., and it makes coming out as gay seem like a smart career move for washed-up entertainers who need a "controversial" publicity stunt.
So, we have people with opinions and gay people who are not considered cool. God forbid you are both! Then you're really up a creek without a paddle. Actually, many gay men I know avoid discussions of politics, even if the discussions are about their own rights! My theory is that they don't want to rock the boat too much, lest they REALLY piss people off. Being gay can be rough enough on your social life, so I think a lot of gay men don't want to be too outspoken so they can avoid being seen as too deviant. I've even talked to some gay men who disdain gay men that are active in social justice and politics, citing the reason that "those gays give us a bad name and make us all look annoying". I thought that was actually a really interesting explanation, as he obviously wanted gay men to be seen in a positive light (seeing that he is one). His (and many others') idea of how this should be done is by being complacent and conforming so that society can see how well-behaved and "cool" we are by not particularly caring about our own rights as citizens, or about our freedom of gender expression. Some could argue that if Johnny Weir wasn't so flamboyant, he would have been more socially acceptable. To that I say: Changing the individual is the lazy choice, changing the society is the right choice.
If the route to being "cool" and "family friendly", is being "straight-acting", having no opinions, and not expressing affection in public, then count me out.
eternally uncool (and okay with it),
Harvey Milk Jr.
Fantastic, Harvey Jr.!!! I think your post really gets at that "why-are-gays-so-in-your-face?" logic, and tears it to shreds. Huzzah!
ReplyDeleteAnd, for all you readers out there who are keeping up with this blog, I will be providing semi-regular book reviews of relevant LGBT/law/politics books on this very blog - so stay tuned!
As a gay man myself, I understand well how political my very existence can be for people. I also understand why a lot of gay people try to tone it down in favor of assimilating into the broader culture. But personally, I actually embrace the fact that my sexuality is so "controversial."
ReplyDeleteWhile there are certainly many important political issues which my sexuality doesn't really come to bear on (the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, for example) there are other, broader issues of masculinity, rape culture, sexuality and the meaning of family which my sexuality does touch on.
Homophobia is directly tied to a very particular (and particularly violent) understanding of masculinity. Sexism against women and male privilege also play into this. Rape culture - which includes the overt objectification of women and threats of male dominance, both in contemporary music, movies, etc - is also tied to a particular understanding of what being manly means, and how men interact with women.
I'm not saying that all men feed into this, of course. But my very sexuality runs counter to many of these narratives, and threaten the seeming naturalness of these ideas. Gay men of all types, as well as lesbian women and especially bisexuals and gender queer individuals, offer a very political statement against this hegemonic masculinity and culture. To downplay that political power is, in some ways, to abdicate to those broader narratives.
There is a CNN documentary coming up soon produced by Soledad O'Brien which follows a gay couple and their struggles to adopt and raise a family (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/in.america/gay.in.america/?iref=allsearch). On the one hand, I am excited to see such a documentary being told by Soledad, who also produced other great documentaries like "Black in America." And yet, part of me wonders how much meaningful conversations we can have about the multiplicity of sexualities, genders and family configurations when we continuously try to claim we are "just like straight people." We are, but we also aren't.
In short, I think the fact that my sexuality might confuse or bother people is great, because that can open the door to conversations and hopefully broader perspectives of the human condition. It is when our very real differences are silenced by the ways in which we are "just like you" that we lose the opportunity for real political action.