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 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.

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

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*

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.

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.

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

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