Wednesday, July 28, 2010

No Fats, Femmes, Asians, or Oldies

Online dating/cruising is a minefield of snap judgments and highly specific standards that the gay community knows all too well. Maybe it's because there's not too many of us to begin with (as compared to our straight pals) and we flock to the net to find each other, or because dating websites are just so damn popular now... or maybe both of these reasons, but the world of online dating/cruising is not new to LGBT people. I remember when I was first coming out, the internet was such an amazing resource for talking to individuals who actually understood the issues I was going through. I have and always will have a special place in my heart for the web, as it is both a meeting point for like-minded individuals who have not been given a voice, a resource for education, and also a tool for social justice.

So there I was, talking to another gay guy about life... when he mentioned to me that he felt so amazingly old. He confided in me that not too many gay guys talked to him anymore because of his age. He was 25. He mentioned that he wants to find a LTR (long term relationship) before he turns 30, because at that point he will be considered dead in the gay community.

I was watching Another Gay Movie with some friends (pretty funny at parts, if you can get over the crazy stereotyping... it became such a staple in my apartment that we would watch it in conjuction with Mamma Mia  almost daily while doing homework and refer to our evening plans as experiencing 'Another Gay Mamma') when I noticed a movie gag about 4 guys going into a gay bar. They're asked how old they are by some bears to which one guy sweetly replies that he's only 17. The bears scoff and say that he's already peaked within the gay community, and leaves him to find younger guys.

Of course this movie gag is completely in jest, but it brings up an interesting piece of gay male culture: the rampant ageism. The man I was talking to online was not kidding when he told me that he felt like he was going to be considered dead when he reached the age of 30. He was perhaps making an exaggeration, but was picking up on a very real truth within the gay male community: youth is worshiped. This may sound no different from straight culture (given that bieber is being fetishized by women) but ageism is even more apparent within the gay male community.

In Darker Shades of Queer, Chong-suk Han discusses his experiences as a gay man of color, and how he has noticed blatant racism within queer circles in addition to homophobia in communities of color. He brings up the critical point that oppressed groups that would benefit from being empathetic to each other's causes (people of color and non-heterosexuals) often discriminate against each other in order to cling to the small piece of privilege that hate brings with it, leaving queer people of color to live in the borderlands of these groups, not necessarily feeling welcome in either. Think about it. In Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word, and Queer as Folk (which are unfortunately seen as the tantamount of gay experience) mainly feature upper middle class white people.

Author Jason Chang really hits the nail on the head when he discusses how Asian-American men in particular are seen as feminine and as undesirable sex partners (sexism/racism/heterosexism connection). This goes in concert with Chong-suk Han's argument, who agrees and goes on to discuss how Black and Hispanic men are seen as hyper-masculine and over-sexualized to the point of people viewing them as sex objects.

I was on a cruising website (probably not the kind of cruise you're thinking of) talking to this guy, when he responded by telling me that he wasn't interested in femmes. At the time, I had no idea what he meant by 'femme' other than that I was probably being associated with a woman. I probed him for more information (as I often do with strangers) and he told me that based on how I look/presented myself, I was too feminine for him. He told me that he is only looking for straight-acting (i.e. masculine) men. I thought to myself, "Okay, that's just one person's preference" and proceeded to look for other guys with less gender-representation-specific standards. I took me all of 1 minute to find another guy with a profile that said "No femmes"... and then another and another and another. I have never seen a dating/cruising profile or even heard of a gay man who is unattracted to 'straight-acting' men. 

All of these connected stories lead to my main idea: marginalization of these groups. Unfortunately it's all too common for gay men to proclaim they deem a combination (or perhaps all) of these groups unattractive. Many claim that their attraction is based on personal preference... and indeed it is... but (if you know me) you know that I like to look at how the big-picture/society shapes our individual experiences/actions/motivations/desires. To say that our desires are only internal and biological would be false, as it pays no homage to how culture and history shape our current situations/desires (and indeed they do). Of course biology does play a role in our sexual attractions, but so do social norms and cultural expectations. What individuals in one society may collectively deem attractive may not carry over to another time period, or even another culture. To say that men are only attracted to blonde haired and blue eyed women is an amazingly white-centered, hetero-normative idea that does not hold up when looking at sexual attraction across the world, throughout time, or among same-sex couples.

 That being said, in gay male culture in United States, there are some cultural moors that dictate who is and isn't attractive. These ideals that white, trim, masculine men are the most attractive are, I believe, a potent mix of sexism, racism, and internalized hetero-sexism. Actually, it's not just here, and not just with gay men.

This is not to say that all people are racist (white people tend to freak out when I use the word 'racism', so I try to explain myself extra carefully so as to make them less defensive and more likely to listen), but it is to say that our snap judgments we make about who is and is not attractive are influenced in part from several cultural ideals that place specific individuals (who have historically held the most societal power) at the pinnacle of attraction. Is it a coincidence that gay males tend to view feminine men as less attractive, when we live in a society that grants more social, cultural, and economic power to men? I think not.

It could be said that my argument is simply me lamenting from not being labeled at the most attractive, but I ask you to do your own research. Go onto gay male dating/cruising websites and take a look. Hell, go onto craigslist. See for yourself. Tell me what you find.


P.S. The female cast of the L Word is actually made of entirely heterosexual women... because apparently straight women are better at being lesbians than... lesbians. Really makes you think about how 'gayness' marketed on TV is actually quite different from the everyday experiences of queer people.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Sunday Quote

Merle Woo (U.S. writer)
Most of the time when "universal" is used, it's just a euphamism for "white"; white themes, white significance, white culture.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Interview with an Ally: Biancaneve

Name: Biancaneve


Age: 21


Race/Ethnicity: White. My ancestors are not from the Caucus Islands.

Gender: Girl

Sex: Female

Religion: Jewish

Social Class: Between lower middle class and working class. Neither of my parents finished college.

Disability Status: not disabled

When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?: Being heterosexual was not something I thought about growing up.  I always wanted the girls in my class to like me, so that meant liking boys.  It wasn't until I was older that I thought about it and realized that I was attracted to boys not because my friends were, but because I actually liked them.  My parents used to wonder whether or not I was homosexual, since I never discussed boys with them, but in reality I'm just a very private person.  My mother did make a point throughout my youth of telling me that I could date anyone, regardless of gender, as long as that person was close to my age.  I think knowing that I would be accepted as any sexual orientation made it easier to think about whether I liked girls or not at a younger age, and to discover that I did not.

To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?: I have disclosed my heterosexual tendencies to my friends and family.  My parents were relieved when I started dating boys, but I know that they would have been okay with me dating girls as well.  My friends expected my heterosexuality.

Have you tried an alternative to heterosexuality?: During my sophomore year of college, one of my close female friends and I went through a period of time when we were both single and would make out at parties.  She always said it was to keep creepy men away from us, but I think it was because we were both curious, single, and bored with the same routine week after week.  Kissing her was like kissing a man I was not attracted to.  It was pleasant, as most kisses are, but it wasn't anything special, like when you share that moment with someone you truly like.

Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?: No, I don't believe so.  Although I think the female body is beautiful in its form, I don't see myself ever dating or settling down with a woman.

What do you think caused your heterosexuality?: Everything.  Growing up in a heteronormative environment, seeing my parents and grandparents have successful heterosexual relationships, romantic comedies; everything I was exposed to from the time I was born helped shape me into the being I am today.  I don't think I would have turned out differently if the media had exposed me to homosexual images early on in life, but the prevalence of heterosexuality definitely made me see it as the "thing to do," so to speak.


Special thanks to Biancaneve for her courage and insight!
*Questions taken from the Heterosexuality Questionnaire, Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977*



If you have some time and feel like some good ol' fashioned introspection, please take our survey here.  All responses from heterosexual allies are more than welcome.


-Harvey

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Interview with an Ally: Reid

Name: Reid

Age: 22

Race/Ethnicity: Caucasian

Gender: male

Religion: Agnostic

When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?: I suppose when I first started thinking girls had cooties and then realizing that actually meant I thought they were attractive.

To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?: I never really had to tell anyone. It's one of the those things that is sort of just assumed.

Have you tried an alternative to heterosexuality?: I've only kissed one man, the leader singer of Mindless Self Indulgence. Though that's a strange claim to fame, I admit I didn't enjoy it.

Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?: At this point, I really doubt it. I mean, anything's possible. I may end up with a boyfriend at some point but right now, I don't see it happening.

What do you think caused your heterosexuality?: Ha. Interesting question. I guess if something really "caused" it, it'd be my need to show women that not all guys are assholes when it comes to relationships :)




Special thanks to Reid for his courage and insight!
*Questions taken from the Heterosexuality Questionnaire, Attributed to Martin Rochlin, PhD, January 1977*

Friday, July 16, 2010

She called me an Angry Feminist

Last month she called me an angry feminist and said that if I didn't stop being so militant, all people would think that feminists are angry. I was so incredibly hurt and explained to her why I thought she was wrong. We stopped talking to each other.

In the 6th grade he called me fat. (Yes, I was fat.) That night I looked into the mirror and hated every part of me that I could and could not see. I wished so much that I could be tiny, so that people would stop noticing me. I wanted to shrink away from everyone's hurtful gaze and just be alone.

The first day of the fourth grade I sat at the designated "girls' table". Later that day a boy told me that I was a girl, so I immediately stopped sitting with and talking to the girls to prove that I was distant from them, and thus should not be categorized as such. (My femme gender representation did not help with this attempt).

During college I had a job where I called alumni to ask them for donations. No matter how many times I mentioned my name was Matt, they would without fail say 'Thank you ma'am" at the end of the conversation. I once talked on the phone with one woman for over an hour about her education and we had a pleasant conversation. At the time I was interested in persuing a similar academic career, so she spoke at length about how it would be a wonderful school for me to go to. At the end of the conversation she told me that it was a woman's college, but I didn't have the heart to break it to her that I'm a guy. She told me that she wanted to take down my name so she could tell my supervisor that she had a nice time talking with me, so I told her my name is Matt. She was horrendously confused and basically hung up on me.

 In high school a lot of the guys called me a faggot, and I knew they meant it in a way that was different from when they called their friends faggots. People I had never even talked to approached me to inform me that I was a bundle of sticks. Before I went to bed each night, I would pray that I was not and would never be gay. I thought that as long as I prayed hard enough, it would just go away.

My freshman year at private college I remember telling people where I'm from and getting pretty similar reactions: "That town is so dirty!" I would laugh nervously and look away, and tell them "You're right! It's so gross..." all the while wishing I was from a gated community in a Connecticut suburb.

She called me radical. Anger started to rise within me, but I stopped myself to think. I realized... she was right. I told her "Yes, I am.", to which she didn't have a reply.

Throughout all parts of my life, I have either run from or denounced parts of myself... parts of myself that I have come to realize are true and real (or at least were at the time). Why? Why did I feel the need to disown where I came from, who I was, and who I was becoming? I am gay. I am an angry feminist. I am radical. I am a femme and I do come from a family that is not oozing wealth. I was fat... although that has since changed, and people who knew me when I was younger congratulated me for no longer being fat, as if I had just accomplished something amazing (and we wonder why eating disorders are so prevalent in this country. Hm.)

These identities are labels that I have denied in hopes of passing as something else (masculine, straight) or labels that I have begrudgingly accepted only to hate (being from a working-class single-parent family). At the time of all these denunciations, I had grown convinced from my friends, family, teachers, strangers, and the rest of mainstream society that these are all things that one should not be proud of. With reflection, positive support from some amazing people, and swearing off corporate media, I've slowly but surely learned that hating parts of who you are is not exactly healthy.

Being radical and an angry feminist is somewhat of a recent development in my life. In the beginning of college, I was what I would call sympathetic to the feminist cause. I would correct people who said that feminists were all angry and militant by explaining that feminism is compatible with the mainstream lifestyle (whatever the hell that is. who knows what the fuck I meant). I've since learned that frankly, it's not. Feminism is not compatible with the way things are. Neither is the Gay Rights movement, and any other current social movement, for that matter. If they were friendly and gentle with the status quo, then what would they advocate for? Nothing. A social movement is not a social movement unless it advocates for some kind of change. Instead of criticizing a system that doesn't work, I tried to make Women's Rights more palatable to all people by saying it's not about being angry. I truly think that this was a big mistake of mine.

Let me be frank (as if I ever beat around the bush), being angry gets shit done. Being radical and advocating for an unpopular paradigm is not about trying to convince everyone that your movement is all cute and sunshiney and that bullshit. It's about facing very real and very dangerous problems in our society that disproportionately affect many different intersecting underprivileged groups.

What makes a social movement successful? I used to think the most successful social movements were the ones that had the most public support, but I've come to realize that this is not the case. An incredible danger that activists face is the pressure to make your movement seem more easy-to-swallow so that you don't piss off a lot of people... when pissing off a lot of people should be expected when you're challenging a dominant way of thinking. So many oppressed people avoid disagreement with the dominant paradigm so much that it can create internalized hatred ... think women who say they hate women (they may be known to say "women can be so catty", trying to distance themselves from "those" women in the social hierarchy).

A pretty clear example of this phenomena is the contemporary battered woman's movement, which emerged in the 1970s. Priya Kandaswamy explains in Innocent Victims and Brave New Laws (pg 83 of Nobody Passes) that within this movement, 2nd wave feminists began to theorize domestic violence was not simply an individual problem, but something that women experienced as a class. Unfortunately, with the introduction of the term battered women's syndrome in the 1990's, people began to pathologize and criminalize battered women by placing the onus of responsibility onto women who are battered, as opposed to the men who beat them.

In order to gain public support for their cause, activists attempted to convince the public that domestic violence was not just a problem of the impoverished, and that it can happen to anyone. Indeed it can, but this hyper-focus on presenting upper-middle class heterosexual white women as the ideal victims that would attract media attention actually ostracized so many other communities from the movement in the process (people of color, gay men, lesbians, poor people, immigrant women, transgender people etc.)

In fact, this exclusive focus on gender within the battered women's movement prevented a real cross-sectional analysis of how race, class, sexuality, body size, religion, disability etc. also play a part within domestic violence. If this were indeed a problem unique to people of color, or trans people, or poor people, then should the public care any less? I would argue that a movement shouldn't have to convince wealthy white heterosexuals that this problem affects them for them for them to care (obviously) but unfortunately, those in power may not give a shit if they feel like it only affects a particular marginalized group. Remember the AIDS epidemic, and how the public cared about it when white heterosexuals were contracting HIV, but not in the 1980's when gay people were contracting in high numbers (or even now, when african-americans are contracting in higher numbers... and people consider AIDS to be "over").

To sort of summarize this, does the feminist movement need to be considered less 'militant' for it to appeal to the public? Should appealing to the public be of any concern to a social movement? Does this concern for public image actually water down a movement's goals and exclude other marginalized groups in the process? Does a movement or identity need to be associated with wealthy white heterosexual people for it to be taken seriously and garner support (monetarily and otherwise)? What is a 'successful' social movement? Do some movements compromise on their original goals to become more "family friendly"? These aren't rhetorical questions. What do you think?

-Harvey Milk Jr.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

The Straight Agenda


Consider this statement:

I hate it when straight people are all in-your-face about their sexuality.

It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Ask yourself why and you'll find the answer is because it is never stated... but it's reversal is incredibly common in mainstream [i.e. straight] speech.

Why is this? Why do you always hear corporate media discuss the ills of gays forcing their 'agenda' onto unsuspecting innocent children (who journalists often assume are all straight), but you never hear any news source discuss the ills of the 'heterosexual agenda'?

One could argue that efforts to limit the rights and legal protections of LGBT U.S.ians are part of the 'sinful' members of the heterosexual agenda. I'm not arguing that there is any heterosexual agenda, but that the very argument that creating safe spaces for LGBT individuals in the workplace is part of some vast conspiracy to limit the rights of heterosexuals is inherently flawed. Given that LGBT U.S.ians are awarded less civil liberties and protections than heterosexuals (when it is perfectly legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation in 29 states, and/or because of their gender identity or expression in 38 states), these basic rights are not "special". Straight people are not fired from their jobs for being straight, as straight is seen as the default, or norm in this country. Many people even fail to remember that heterosexuality is itself a sexual orientation, just as so many fail to recognize Caucasian as a race (think about how white people are often baffled at the concept of white culture).

In this country (and in many other industrialized western nations) when we mention learning about race, so many of us immediately think of non-white people. When we mention learning about gender, so many of us immediately think about women. When we mention learning about sexual orientation, so many of us immediately think of gay men (lesbians, bisexuals, and other sexualities considered "deviant" are often forgotten about in addition to heterosexuals).

Heterosexual privilege #7: My sexual orientation is unconsciously and consciously considered the default sexual orientation.

As an example of not being part of the "default", let us consider the skin color phenomenon in this country, where anything "skin colored" or "nude colored" is automatically assumed to be the color of white people's skin. Anyone remember this dress that Michelle Obama wore? Fashion critics (and even the dress's designer) referred to the dress as "nude" colored... when it is obviously not the color of Michelle Obama's skin.

Here's an excellent link that points to maleness as being frequently considered the default of sex in the U.S.

And finally, the piece de resistance, Republicans (or gay oppression party, w'evs) accused Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor of being "biased" in her judicial decisions during her confirmation hearings... not realizing that they assumed white men are racially neutral in all judicial decisions. Oops!

How convenient when people who claim we live in a post-racial society (i.e. arguing "We're all color-blind") actually mean that only white people live in a post-racial society... because, you know, whiteness isn't a race, natch! (please note my excessive sarcasm).

Anywayz, back to my gay agenda. If I were an African American marching with Dr. King, would you say I had a black agenda? If I were a woman working with Elizabeth Cady Stanton fighting for Women's Suffrage, would you accuse me of having a women's agenda? If I were disabled and working with Edward Roberts to ensure that federal organizations cannot fire someone solely because of their handicap, would you say I had a disabled agenda?  If you would, then I would be proud to be part of all of these agendas (and more).

To say that Frederick Douglass wanted to limit the rights of white people or that Betty Freidan wanted to limit the rights of men (which some people still think) is absolutely false. They wanted equality for all people regardless of identity status, not just who the religious right happens to like (i.e. wealthy straight christian men... yes, the religious right hurts women).

Okay, time for me to go spread the gay gospel by converting innocent straight children into devious little gays who support heavily taxing the wealthy with my homo-socialist-witchcraft-powers. Muahahahahahahaha.

p.s. Albus Dumbledore was gay, and no one ever complained about him implementing the gay agenda!! Or maybe that's why Hufflepuff was formed... to act as a gay and lesbian task force at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry... This is obviously the most critical piece to my argument.

-Harvey Milk Jr.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Dudebros gone wild.

So there was this guy... let's call him privileged-Ivy-League-dudebro... or frat boy for short. He approached me at a bar and chatted me up. There was some definite flirtation going on, and we seemed to hit it off pretty well. He leaned in and cooly whispered that he wanted my number, and I gave it to him. By the end of the night, he was even buddy-buddy with my platonic male heterosexual lifepartners who came with me to the bar and he bought them drinks! All was well.

To make a short story longer, he suddenly dropped the bomb on me: he was straight. "Oh, that's okay", I thought to myself. "We could still make it work." Then it suddenly hit me how difficult it would be to have a romantic or sexual encounter with someone who is not attracted to those of my sex.

"I'm interested in your friend, though" he casually mentioned, nodding over to my female companion who had also come with me.

I think my reaction was something eloquent, well-thought-out, and political, like "huh?"

He explained to me that he likes to flirt with and get to know gay men in order to have "access to" their attractive straight female friends. "Gay guys always know hot girls to bring to frat parties." Yes. He said this.

Pause.

Before I continue, let us first consider the implications of the various degrees of exploitation that are eminating from this Ivy-league-wonder.

1. I will exploit this dashing gay man by using my charm to woo him and use him as an all-access pass to pussy land.
2. I will exploit young women by stroking the ego of this young gay man with flirtation, in hopes that he will barter with me and prostitute his hot female friends to me and my fraternity brothers.
3. I will welcome these young women into my frat house in hopes that they will have awkward drunk sex with my fraternity brothers, thus solidifying my social status within my fraternity as the guy who brought humans with vaginas into the frat house.

Before I go on, we must also consider the ultimate dehumanization of women the privileged-Ivy-League-dudebro is insinuating, as he didn't even want to talk to women, but wanted to have sex with women. He wanted to level with another man about the business transaction of sex that was occurring. He wanted to 'get with' my female friend and perhaps more of my female friends, but to do this he was going only approach another man (me) who he somehow assumed was gatekeeper of the sexuality of other women. What a clever boy... treating women like cattle... he did go to Cornell, after all!

Let's put aside for a second how humiliating it was for me to realize that he had no interest in me (which is not easy to do). He did not ask what my friend's name is. He did not ask me what her favorite color is, or if she has any hobbies. I could imagine a situation in which he was shy with talking to women, and wanted me to introduce him to her... but there was no point in the entire evening in which he viewed my friend (or women, for that matter) as distinct human beings with names, personalities, ambitions, lives, and their own sexual desires. Nope. He was just really preoccupied with:

A. His social status within his small world of rich boys with extremely misplaced priorities.
B. Getting the sex so he could raise his social status.

The identity of your female friend? I could care less. Your feelings? Pffffffft, feelings are so gay.

I ended up telling him that he's disgusting. Whoops.

It's really entirely possible that he was making some weird elaborate cover story in his own mind to convince himself that he's not attracted to men (I like to tell myself this), but either way it's not exactly a feel-good story.

Heterosexual privilege #6: It is not necessary for me to consider the feelings of those with a different sexuality than mine in order to get along/ahead in the world.

I would consider this situation to be unique to an oppressor-oppressed phenomenon... meaning: The oppressor does not need to consider the feelings/insights/perspectives of the oppressed in order to live/work/breathe... but the oppressed sure as hell needs to learn the oppressor front-wards and backwards in order to get along in the world.

LGBT individuals essentially need to treat straight people with respect simply to exist in this world, as straight people by and large rule this world and define its rules... but hets don't need to treats non-heterosexuals with respect in order to live/breathe/work peacefully. In fact, many heterosexuals seem to make a living by capitalizing off the hatred of the uneducated masses.

So many straight people want to continue this legacy of keeping non-hets on the bottom of the social/economic ladder... because equality would mean less privilege for them to enjoy. There are even many heterosexual individuals who fully admit that inequalities exist within our society, but are not willing to give up their social and/or economic privileges because they feel like they somehow earned it by having genetics/social conditions that pushed them into a heterosexual self-identification.

Oh, and yes. My friend does have a name, but I won't be posting it unless she wants me to.

Anywayz, I'm off to go barter with the big boys over the sexualities of my straight female friends... maybe my feudal serfdom lord can help with that.

-Harvs