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

Controversial

Heterosexual Privilege #2: I am not automatically considered inherently "controversial" or "political".

Ah yes... the luxury of being politically apathetic... many straights I know admit to not really give a flying fuck when it comes to politics. The word "politics" itself is a rather value-laden, "dirty" word which can often invoke imagery of corrupt politicians who scream at each other until they turn red in the face. When you're in the politics biz, you will be hated. It's unfortunate, but true. It's damn near impossible to appease everyone, and those that do are probably incredibly vague and noncommittal when it comes to important issues for fear of pissing people off. Frankly, it's "cool" to not care. This generation of digital natives is unfortunately encouraged to be apathetic by peers who love to criticize, but will not admit to having positive feelings over something. It's much more difficult to publicly love than it is to hate, especially when you're young and self-conscious. Those that make strong, bold statements about a person, idea, place, etc. run the risk of pissing people off, which is decidedly "not cool". In my experience, the "cool" kids in high school were the ones that had absolutely nothing interesting to say.

Back in my early blogging days, I had a livejournal account throughout high school, where I stumbled to understand more about my awkward self and my even more awkward life. On one occasion, one of the "cool" kids talked to me online to tell me that he read my livejournal, which made me feel super flattered. I didn't particularly like him, but I swooned because he was one of the "cool" kids, and was giving me attention. After careful inspection, he informed me that it was deep. I thanked him, to which he corrected me by saying "being deep isn't cool". Yes, he was serious. I look back on this now and wonder if it was maybe his idea of a nice gesture... one cool kid to a nerd, telling him his secrets about how to be cool... or maybe he was just an asshole.

Anyway, I digress. Having opinions is seen as a bad thing... particularly in high school. After recently learning about the many inequalities that exist in our world today and reflecting on discrimination I have personally experienced, I now know that I cannot afford the luxury of being politically apathetic. Perhaps my peers who enjoy heterosexual privileges can afford to do so because they enjoy many financial, social, and legal benefits that I do not (hence one of the reasons for writing this blog).

Besides the whole having-opinions-thing, there's the whole being gay thing. In contemporary U.S. society, gays are considered inherently controversial. For this year's superbowl, CBS rejected a commercial for a gay dating website that featured two men kissing ZOMG. The nerve of those gays, thinking they can kiss on television! CBS did, however, air a commercial for an anti-choice group, Focus on the Family.

Okay, let me stress here that CBS rejected a non-political dating website commercial and approved of a commercial from a very political organization. Many well-intentioned people who are sympathetic to my argument noted that if they "air some commercials like that, they should air all." Please note: a gay dating website is not rallying to immediately change legislation, while an anti-choice organization is. The two should not be placed on an equal political playing field, because one of which is not even trying to be political. I could possibly understand if they decided to deny a commercial asking for the repeal of DADT, but dating? Come on. Dating is hard enough without being considered a political statement.

It's not just gays kissing, either. Somewhere, deep in the DNA of all gay people is the gene for political controversy which prevents them from being "family friendly". Just ask Johnny Weir, three-time U.S. skating champion who was very popular in this year's Winter Olympics. Weir was rejected from Stars On Ice in March because he was not "family friendly".

Nevermind gay people who raise families. They obviously don't count. OH right, they mean traditional families. You know... like on Leave it to Beaver! The middle class white family with two happily married heterosexual parents (of which the wife is expected to stay home and cook/clean/care for the children) who aren't particularly interesting and two cisgendered heterosexual children who always seem to be getting into g-rated mischief! Yeah, Tradition!... because throughout all of history and across all cultures, all families raise their children in this exact manner. If they don't, well... then they aren't real families. What? The Etoro Tribe in New Guinea don't have little league and clam bakes and boy scouts and apple pie? Well then FUCK THEM. They must be rejected from both Stars On Ice and CBS commercials. Huh? U.S. Women worked outside of the household during the second world war? We should probably alert the Texas Board of Education so they can tear those pages out of their history books.

(please note my sarcasm)

Don't even get me started about the phenomenon of new stories that cover a celebrity's coming out process garnering more media attention than the Iraq war and the healthcare debate combined. It's ridiculous how much we care about these "scandals" in the U.S., and it makes coming out as gay seem like a smart career move for washed-up entertainers who need a "controversial" publicity stunt.

So, we have people with opinions and gay people who are not considered cool. God forbid you are both! Then you're really up a creek without a paddle. Actually, many gay men I know avoid discussions of politics, even if the discussions are about their own rights! My theory is that they don't want to rock the boat too much, lest they REALLY piss people off. Being gay can be rough enough on your social life, so I think a lot of gay men don't want to be too outspoken so they can avoid being seen as too deviant. I've even talked to some gay men who disdain gay men that are active in social justice and politics, citing the reason that "those gays give us a bad name and make us all look annoying". I thought that was actually a really interesting explanation, as he obviously wanted gay men to be seen in a positive light (seeing that he is one). His (and many others') idea of how this should be done is by being complacent and conforming so that society can see how well-behaved and "cool" we are by not particularly caring about our own rights as citizens, or about our freedom of gender expression. Some could argue that if Johnny Weir wasn't so flamboyant, he would have been more socially acceptable. To that I say: Changing the individual is the lazy choice, changing the society is the right choice.

If the route to being "cool" and "family friendly", is being "straight-acting", having no opinions, and not expressing affection in public, then count me out.

eternally uncool (and okay with it),

Harvey Milk Jr.