First published in Bay Windows, September 13, 2007
Mike Rogers of blogActive.com is riding high these days. The scourge of anti-gay politicians who engage in gay sex themselves has been proved right in his charges last October that Idaho Senator Larry Craig was seeking gay sex in public restrooms. In the last few weeks, Rogers has been profiled by the Washington Post, interviewed by cable TV hosts Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews, and called the most feared man on Capitol Hill. The blogosphere has breached the wall of the mainstream media (MSM) that once would have ignored his efforts as unseemly.
I have mixed feelings on the question of outing anti-gay politicians. On the one hand, I agree with Congressman Barney Frank's dictum that "People have a right to privacy, but not to hypocrisy." I am as sick as anyone of being demonized by ruthless political operatives to turn out socially conservative voters. On the other hand, I am troubled by outing as a tactic because it capitalizes on people's homophobia, and it too seems ruthless. Rogers and outing pioneer Michelangelo Signorile reject the term "outing" in favor of "reporting," but the latter is less precise.
I encountered Rogers at a reception Sept. 6 at the Smithsonian Institution honoring 82-year-old gay pioneer Frank Kameny, whose picket signs from the first gay protest outside the White House in 1965 are included in a new exhibit titled "Treasures of American History." The classy affair had a lot of gay movers and shakers and good food and drink. I chatted with Rogers, who is quite affable personally, and he mentioned his next target, another Republican senator. He was praised by several guests, including a disillusioned gay Republican. Rogers acknowledged some awkwardness, as a Republican staffer whom he outed last year stood a few yards away.
As I told Rogers, I am especially opposed to his outing of GOP staffers. Over the years, gay rights activists have obtained a good deal of useful intelligence from Capitol Hill's informal gay network. Often it was staffers for right-wing Republicans who provided the best information at off-the-record meetings. Apparently, I am not the only one: On Monday, via Washington Post "Sleuth" reporter Mary Ann Akers, Rogers announced a change in strategy: he will stop outing staffers. He explained to the Post, "Enough readers expressed concerns that I have decided to now focus on elected officials, those running for office and to high level political appointees in the administration."
Rogers told me that he hates what he does, but he considers it necessary. He thinks it will significantly neutralize the far-right's anti-gay wedge politics. Assuming that is true, I still find it ethically troubling. Vindictiveness hardly seems conducive to expanding support for gay equality, and Rogers's actions smack of vindictiveness even if that is not his intent. You cannot justify playing God by citing the quality of your research.
Looking at Rogers, you might never suspect that he traffics in anyone's sordid secrets. He brings a professional polish to his media appearances. On television he appears relaxed and confident, crisply relays his talking points, and does not stumble or ramble. These skills smoothed his story's transition from the Web to the MSM. Someone who came across as creepy or eccentric would be easier to dismiss.
In January 2006, Rogers sent his then-targeted senator a letter warning him that a vote either for the Federal Marriage Amendment or for the confirmation of Samuel Alito as a Supreme Court justice would lead to the senator's homosexual activities being reported on blogActive.com. Some have suggested that this amounts to criminally punishable blackmail. Legal opinion appears divided on that question, but legality aside, it sure looks like blackmail to me. And how does Rogers avoid arbitrariness in choosing which votes justify outing someone? There was no consensus that Alito was anti-gay when he was nominated, and some evidence to the contrary.
Last week, Rogers wrote, "People are finally getting that gay Americans have had enough … Craig's arrest when coupled with the hypocrisy of his seeking sexual encounters from the very men he actively legislates against, becomes merely the catalyst to expose the dishonesty and secrecy of anti-gay politicians who expect a community to harbor its own."
Our movement has seen radical tactics before. In Washington in 1971, gay activists charged into the Shoreham Hotel's Regency Ballroom to zap the convocation of the annual convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), whose definition of homosexuality as a pathology in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was used to justify anti-gay discrimination. During the confusion, Frank Kameny seized the microphone. He denounced the psychiatrists and insisted that homosexuality was an orientation on par with heterosexuality. The electrifying moment was a declaration of war, a war the gay activists won in 1973 when APA declassified homosexuality as an illness.
Are we at a comparable moment, when a violation of protocol is needed to "get things moving," as Kameny has put it? Or does the use of outing go too far? We need a thoughtful and civil discussion about what effect the use of an inherently negative tactic might have on those who employ it and those on whose behalf it is employed.
It may be that before many socially conservative Americans will reconsider their anti-gay stance, they must become disillusioned with their leaders. Yet they might just as readily react to the shock of outings by hardening their hearts further against gay people. That is something Mike Rogers might want to investigate.
Corvino, John
{ 83 comments }
Or……Americans wonder what other dirty politic tactics are used by the parties to take down their opponents……
I think a major problem with restraint from “reporting”–or taking the “high road”–is that the population does not know it is occurring, and thus it looks like a one-sided battle being waged. The low road is what people pay attention to, unfortunately, and it is especially what the media pays attention to.
My problem with outing is more karmic than anything else: Can something that is truly positive stem from something that is negative? But maybe the hypocritical politicians are the ones who need a taste of karma, themselves, before we can make progress.
(And by negative, I mean violating someone’s privacy, not simply saying that someone is gay, which is not a negative statement.)
So what exactly is wrong with “vindictiveness”? Are gays supposed to have the “good manners” to just idly sit by while Republicans (and a few anti-gay Democrats) are intent on, or willingly accepting, destroying the lives of gay and lesbian people? No, if you’re trying to destroy my life, you’re fair game.
I understand that for rich white men like Rosendall, it’s possible for them to relaxing in their comfy armchairs taking the “high road”, because they have the LUXURY that EVERYTHING is ABSTRACT to them. But for people who actually have something to lose, who actually do care, it’s PERSONAL, and we MUST defend ourselves against those who would try to hurt us.
Those anti-gay gays, chase them down, expose them, and if it hurts them, if their lifes are destroyed? So be it. What goes around, comes around. They’ve got no one to blame but themselves. Let’s roll (not over).
Southern Decency:
I think vindictiveness for the sake of vindictiveness is problematic. Remember, we have the moral high ground in this struggle, and while one may argue tactics (I see what Rick is saying, but I do not agree that outing should be off the table), I do think keeping that high ground would serve us more than being seen as vindictive rather than righteous.
I do see outing as more righteous than vindictive, and I don’t think having the high ground is necessarily the same as taking the high road as Rick seems to be arguing above.
Lastly, while we disagree on this topic, and probably many others, I happen to know that Rick does not exactly fit the oligarchic image you have conjured of him, as he is my cousin. Although you bring up a good point, as I think outing is intrinsically an anti-classist weapon (it’s the rich, white overlords who are saying that fucking in the men’s room is “all right for me but not for thee”).
Hey, Cousin Dave, glad to see you here at IGF!
Yes, “Southern Decency” (there’s nothing in a name, it seems) is rather wide of the mark in referring to “rich white men like Rosendall.” I am not sure why people make such assumptions. Ralph Nader, whom many on the left like to vote for (which only helps the GOP), may look poor but he is rich. I would say, let’s stick to the merits and leave the mud-slinging to others. But if you cannot resist, at least get your facts right.
From Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com
I am somewhat conflicted about the tactics of Rogers. The process of accepting and disclosing one?s gayness is very stressful and scary?you have to worry about rejection from the people you care about the most, and begin to deal with the changes that come with being identified as a gay American. When someone else outs you, you loose control over this very difficult process, and it adds to the emotional turmoil.
What?s more, Rogers? tactics create a new sort of McCarthyism targeting gays. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to see again this kind of a witch hunt going on within the walls of our government.
Those concerns noted, I ultimately support the outing of anti-gay politicians. These politicians take their own shame and self-hatred over being gay out on open gays who just want to live their lives with dignity (as opposed to finding sexual fulfillment through secret trysts in public restrooms and parks). To me, using your democratically elected office as a closet is an abuse of power, and we need people like Rogers to expose that.
I support Mike Rodgers 100%. How gay men and women can be part of the republican party is beoynd me. Why would someone become part of a group of people (republicans) that strive to destroy your lifestyle by demonizing gay people; constantly fighting against our equal rights, etc. Gay republicans are nothing but hypocrites and deserve to be outed.
Elizabeth: I am not concerned about what outing will do to the anti-gay closet cases so much as I am concerned about what the use of that tactic will do to us.
Richard (rssandiego): The fact that the GOP has been hijacked in recent years by what Frank Kameny calls the nuttyfundamentalists does not mean that all Republicans are happy about it, nor that homophobia is the alpha and omega of Republicanism. Some Republicans, including Log Cabin members, seek to change the party from within. If they believe in traditional Republican values like small government and low taxes (which you may consider wrongheaded but are hardly hypocritical on that account), why should they have to concede the party to the fanatics? I myself am a centrist Democrat and have no interest in being a Republican, but I respect others’ choices as long as they reciprocate; and some do.
There is an interesting book by a disaffected Republican that was published earlier this year, titled “Invasion of the Party Snatchers.” The author, Victor Gold, was press aide to Barry Goldwater, and is scathing about the “Holy Rollers” and Neocons and how they have wrecked his party. Since one can hardly expect everyone to become a liberal Democrat, it makes more sense to me to encourage those in our community who are more conservative to work for a conservatism that is not anti-gay, rather than to smear all conservatives as if they are like Larry Craig, which they are not.
Outing tends, to me, to mean a surgically targeted method. Not just throwing papers on the wall and see which stick. Which is why I don’t have problems with Rogers doing it since he has established a history of thorough investigation. Maybe Signorelli also. Beyond that, there really isn’t anybody I can think of who could be trusted to do this. Think the staffs of NGLTF and HRC. And the members and leaders of ACTUP. These are people I would not trust to do outing.
Rogers and Signorelli, yeah but no one else. Which sounds like an incredibly dippy political position. It also seems to be the way the system works. People forward tips and information to these two and they see if there’s anything there. Then once they have proof, hard evidence, they begin the outing. I can support this. But not the friend of a friend stories that plague certain people, who seem to be happily heterosexual.
The other point, I really don’t care what happens to toilet queens. They more than anyone else are the reason we get bad publicity. And when the arrests are published, the names are almost never those of out gay people. Not a lot of sympathy from this quarter. And Rogers seems to have focused on people who had this sort of sex.
RichardJ: “The fact that the GOP has been hijacked in recent years by what Frank Kameny calls the nuttyfundamentalists does not mean that all Republicans are happy about it, nor that homophobia is the alpha and omega of Republicanism.” Sorry Richard, but i’ve heard that tired line before…”the party has been hijacked by the religious right”…bla, bla, bla… So what if it has…. these guys still keep quiet (in the closet) and even publicly support antigay measures (ala Larry Graig) ….for what?? Conservatism? Give me a break. and it’s more than “nuttyfundamentalists” were dealing with here. These fundamentalist aren’t just nutty…they’re downright scary…Gay men and women that call themselves republicans and accept the republican party’s antigay platform (by the fact that they belong) need to be shown the hypocrites that they are! Rodger’s is spot on!
We need a thoughtful and civil discussion …
If it can be done, you mean, without some people fearing risking themselves as a “target”?
There are at least two discussions to be had, before the general one. The first is among those who are in the glass closet and those who are not but are non-plussed about that (even a little instinctually defensive of those who might be). Some of those people are the ones it would be good to hear from, but they might not engage in a “civil discussion” – MAYBE – without fear of making themselves a target.
The second is among those who get so wrapped up in “outing”, somehow, that it subsumes everything else that can be done and takes on the zealous form of Grand Inquisitor or seeing everyone who is not “out enough” as a treacherous “collaborator”.
After that, there might a productive “civil discourse” to be had, on whether there are some non-ideological, ethical rules-of-thumb.
If that seems like too many preliminaries or a lot of hot-air, then I’d be interested in the dissenting opinion to the following:
Case Study: One
It is good to expose hypocrisy, but by only exposing hypocrisy related to sexuality, you run a danger of an unnuanced populace saying “well it’s homosexual politicians that are hypocritical, we just need to work harder to make sure there are less homosexuals in politics.” It also makes an instant but unsavoury connection between homosexuality and toilet-trolling.
If Rogers were working within a broader context of exposing political hypocrisy then I’d feel a bit more comfortable.
I find outing to be totally disgusting, save for the outing of hypocritical politicians like Craig, as he is in a direct position of power.
What I find troubling about this incident is that the outing was not done by a legitimate, professional journalist (who, hopefully, would have learned something in J-school, like fact checking) — it was done by one guy with a computer. When any idiot with a computer can create a blog and write anything they want about someone else with little or no evidence or fact checking, that should be VERY troubling to EVERYONE.
Richard (rssandiego), you are overgeneralizing. Everyone who disagrees with you politically is not on that account a hypocrite. Being conservative in and of itself does not make someone a hypocrite. There are many gay Republicans who oppose the anti-gay direction their party has taken in recent years, and who have worked to fight it. Since, like it or not, everyone is not going to agree with you politically, there is no point in taking a position that allows no room for anyone to be a Republican without being called names. Nor does it make any sense to treat the Republican party monolithically as you are doing. I say let the GOP suffer some serious electoral defeats, after which reformers such as the leaders of Log Cabin will have more leverage to push for reform, including repudiating the intolerance of the nuttyfundamentalists and the pandering to them that has been so rampant. Since there are going to be Republicans whether you like it or not, you might as well recognize that we are better off having pro-gay reformers within that party than not. Sometimes our community seems to celebrate every form of diversity except diversity of opinion. Well, I am sorry, but insulting people does not make them disappear, nor does it persuade a soul.
My biggest problem with what Mike Rogers is doing and has done is that I believe its primary effect is to out gays as conservatives, and to expose them to hate mail and harassment, from liberal gays and sympathizers who have a couple of screws loose.
Rogers called Rick Santorum’s staffer a “traitor” on his site and posted lurid pictures of them together. It wasn’t even an “outing” since Santorum already knew he was gay, and the right didn’t react to the story at all. Only the people who visited Rogers’ site got their implicit marching orders when Rogers posted a link to his phone number. Guess what happened?
So yes, if Mike Rogers has any hope of his outing campaign actually advancing civil rights instead of oppressing gays, it’s a very good thing he’s not going to be outing gay staffers as conservatives anymore.
If the head of the DEA was running a crackhouse in his spare time, would anyone shout “invasion of privacy!” if he was exposed? Would it be reasonable for a white supremacist to expect his half-black children to remain a secret?
I don’t agree that the gay community should be expected to hide, coddle, and keep the secrets of it’s enemies. What nation, what minority, what group in the world would be expected to do that?
See, that’s another problem I have, this idea that conservatives (and gay conservatives) are “enemies”, period. It proves my point: the purpose of outing is not to advance civil rights but to punish dissenters within the gay community and enforce a gay orthodoxy. This happens in every minority community as some of its members become more mainstream, and in every minority community it’s disgusting.
All minorities should be expected to abide by this country’s dream of a nation where all men are created equal, where freedom of speech, creed, and expression is sacred, and dissent is respected. I take a dim view of the idea that gay conservatives are more evil than straight conservatives, which is what the practice of outing suggests.
Mike Rogers is the OJ Simpson of gays –operating far outside the parameters of decency, left catering to a coarse, vulgar element in our community and society at large, and using us for cover (like OJ does with black innercity youth groups) when his antics backfire. Like OJ, Rogers is a scumbag beyond redemption. And I’m trying to say something nice about him.
What your article doesn’t point out is that Rogers is as bad –if not worse– than the people he targets because Mikey (just like those he attacks) has ALSO sold out our cause –only Rogers does it for the benefit of the Democrat Party masters he so earnestly protects and advances. No different than those he claims to out in his attack antics.
Nawh, Rogers and those within our community who continue to support his antics deserve the scorn of all gays. He’s doing us a great disservice in the short and long term.
The only ones gleeful about these outings are the whacked, radical Left in our community who, themselves, have more than a few “issues” to deal with before they’ll be a constructive force for change in a civil society.
Like the 1980′s era anti-religious loons in our community who took to approaching the Catholic communion rail to confront American Bishops DURING Mass, Rogers antics bring shame to all gays… we just don’t need more of this gutter Democrat Party styled activism parading as “gay” activism in the face of hyprocrisy.
The ultimate hypocrite is Rogers and his ilk… he is our OJ Simpson –smooth, polished, media savvy and deadly to our interests.
Ooo, look at the big tough talk from the screaming Rogers supporters.
Those anti-gay gays, chase them down, expose them, and if it hurts them, if their lifes are destroyed? So be it. What goes around, comes around. They’ve got no one to blame but themselves. Let’s roll (not over).
Or:
So what if it has…. these guys still keep quiet (in the closet) and even publicly support antigay measures (ala Larry Graig) ….for what??
Then go to it.
Here’s one.
Here’s one.
And there’s a whole slew of gay staffers who supported this behavior, this behavior, and this as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, worthy of tens of millions of dollars of support and endorsements.
Including Mike Rogers.
So go to it, “Southern Decency” and “Richard” — and if you’re watching, Mike Rogers.
Call out Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, Steve Elmendorf, and whatnot. Set out to destroy and ruin their lives the same way that you have gay Republicans. Call up their workplaces and harass their bosses, trying to get them fired. Call their friends and business associates, pretending to be working on behalf of the police, and threaten them with arrest if they don’t cooperate.
Or what’s that? You don’t care about endorsing and supporting the FMA, state constitutional amendments, the religious right, and workplace discrimination if it’s Democrats?
Figures.
If Rogers were working within a broader context of exposing political hypocrisy then I’d feel a bit more comfortable.
What would that ‘context’ look like?
If there is a world that you long to see, and you have the time and talent, Carpe Diem!
ND30,
It seems like the bulk of your civil dialog is that
1. Most of all, you don’t like substituting ‘harassment’ for good judgment on how to end a general harmful hypocrisy, mostly centered around elected officials.
2. You seem to think that all outing is ideologically driven; or, that some outing should be directed toward Dems, too; or because Howard Dean fired someone or Hilary Rosen made a contribution to John Ford, that any outing whatsoever is just self-serving.
3. That the Democratic party trying to pull the evangelical base out from under the thumb of those misleading it into the hands of the GOP is going to somehow throw gays and lesbians under the bus just as much as the GOP has tried to in the past.
on those, the civil dialog back might be (others can add their own):
1. Does anyone disagree with you on that?
2. You’d have to clear up what you mean more precisely.
3. It seems like the Evangelicals who might be attracted to progressivism are already the ones who are inclined to be more inclusive.
The big pink elephant is in the room and crapping on the coffee table, but everyone seems to be studiously ignoring this massive beast, so I’ll point it out.
This “debate” is a clash between generations.
The idea of the closet as a sacred place, defended endlessly by every gay person at the behest of the closet case, is a concept of older people — people in their mid 40s, 50s, 60s, and onwards.
Most gay people in their teens, 20s, 30s, and early 40s have been out for years — to the point where the closeted meeting spaces of the past, gay bars, are closing at record speed.
In short, the culture of the ghetto versus the closet is a dying thing. The pathetic closet cases like Craig, in possession of tremendous political power that they wield hypocritically, will give way to a new generation of political leader who has always been out. The Mike Rogerses, Signoriles, and Craigs of the world will be, in another 5 to 10 years, relics of a bygone era — important, to be certain, but hardly controversial.
So the whole debate about the “ethics of outing” will be as dead as Harvey Milk in a couple of years. People who aren’t out will either come out, slip out, or step out of the glare of public life. If someone is stupid enough to attempt a career as a closeted politician in contemporary America, he no longer has the fig leaf of cultural ignorance and “polite decorum” from people of all sexual orientations towards his or her duplicity. People will more or less immediately call it when they see it — in the media and in the voting booth alike.
And that’s a good thing. Gay people have spent far too long living under this toxic assumption that “we” have an obligation to actively lie, ourselves, to facilitate additional lying to the world at large by others.
Most of all, you don’t like substituting ‘harassment’ for good judgment on how to end a general harmful hypocrisy, mostly centered around elected officials.
Half right.
Harassment isn’t a good idea.
But further, obsessing about “hypocrisy” based on one’s public v. private life in a movement that is based on the theory that one’s private sex life should have no bearing on anything else is meaningless and hypocritical in itself.
The reason Mike Rogers outs is because he is like Perez Hilton; he is incompetent to do anything other than scandalmongering.
My opinion is that gay people can do better than that at forming coherent arguments that don’t require flinging personal dirt, but given the support for Rogers that I see, it is quickly changing.
You seem to think that all outing is ideologically driven; or, that some outing should be directed toward Dems, too; or because Howard Dean fired someone or Hilary Rosen made a contribution to John Ford, that any outing whatsoever is just self-serving.
Yes, no, yes.
I don’t support outing regardless of the situation. Period.
That the Democratic party trying to pull the evangelical base out from under the thumb of those misleading it into the hands of the GOP is going to somehow throw gays and lesbians under the bus just as much as the GOP has tried to in the past.
That example shows it clearly. Howard Dean rewrote the Democrat Party platform right there on the spot to please Pat Robertson.
And as far as “misleading” it goes, you seem to be under the impression that these people will overlook the Democrats’ complete support for abortion and domination by left-wing groups and individuals that are openly hostile and derisive to religion and religious beliefs, i.e. Amanda Marcotte and DailyKos.
Whatshisname: John Ford directed Westerns. Harold Ford ran for the Senate from Tennessee.
Of course, one could resolve such confusion by heeding the advice of the medieval cleric who, referring to the residents of a schismatic French town, said, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
And as for Rogers, the insanity of this man is made clear when one considers this.
Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to ?internment camps? that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. ?I know what happened to gay Jews who didn?t get out fast enough last time,? Rogers said.
Furthermore, he should follow his own words.
?Ultimately, on November 2, I believe that our country is making a decision about good and evil,? Rogers said. ?If Bush is elected, I?m leaving the country.?
But further, obsessing about “hypocrisy” based on one’s public v. private life in a movement that is based on the theory that one’s private sex life should have no bearing on anything else is meaningless and hypocritical in itself.
=============
Well the 2-round dialog might be as follows:
There are those who say, “being gay doesn’t define me” – or as you say, “your private sex life”.
Well, that’s just rubbish, right? I mean, of course your sexuality is integral to you. And, of course, it has a social component and doesn’t just occur ‘in the bedroom’.
It’s that we don’t want *others* to use our sexuality to limit and define us. But they do. Broadly put, it’s called homophobia.
There do appear to be some fairly clear cases in which a split between public and private is supporting a generalized homophobia. To that end, the vexing issues of “outing” come up.
Put another way, you’ve tried to define away the problem with your formulation, it seems.
In terms of “private sex life” – my hunch would be that most people would intuit a difference between knowing that someone is gay or lesbian and ‘having the pictures’. In other words, one might be interested to know that person X is gay or non-gay (because of the current political context), but not really be interested in knowing all the details of what goes on in their bedroom, or whatever else.
I don’t support outing regardless of the situation. Period.
o.k., but you haven’t really made a case for that (here), in principle. Those in favor of it have, to some degree.
Howard Dean rewrote the Democrat Party platform right there on the spot to please Pat Robertson.
I think you misinterpret. Dean – and Clinton before him – are trying to reach out to a set of religious voters who are tired of having been misled to the GOP, using ‘abortion’ and ‘the homosexual agenda’ as the sine qua non of everything they vote for. There are strong progressive strains in much of ‘evangelicalism’, much of which does not have to include Pat Roberston or the Bush-Administration’s above-ground highway to “Freedom University”.
the insanity of this man
If he’s overstating, then why are you understating?
Put another way, Richard’s thought for an ethics of outing is not going to be found at either extreme, I don’t suspect. It’s still up for debate, though.
John Ford directed Westerns.
==========
Ah, yes, and they don’t make ‘em like they used to. Even Brokeback was filmed up in Alberta. Half the time, the extras don’t look like they’ve ridden more than a week or two to get ready for the role …
Jorge, you’re way off base here: “See, that’s another problem I have, this idea that conservatives (and gay conservatives) are “enemies”, period.”
At no point did I say conservatives, or gay conservatives are our enemies. It’s quite simple, those that think we do not deserve equal rights are our enemies. Those who attack is in print, media, or in our governmental bodies are our enemies.
“It proves my point: the purpose of outing is not to advance civil rights but to punish dissenters within the gay community and enforce a gay orthodoxy.”
To put it another way. If I hid my Polish ancestry, and as a politician actively persecuted and tried to dehumanize the Polish people, you can bet that my family would not stand idly by. I would no longer be welcome at family events, and my birth certificate with my real name and ancestry would be plastered all over the news. This is no different.
There do appear to be some fairly clear cases in which a split between public and private is supporting a generalized homophobia. To that end, the vexing issues of “outing” come up.
You are very wrong.
Because, in the cases I cited above, “outing” and attempts to publicly humiliate/harass these people who are openly supporting and working for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who pander to Pat Robertson, and people who fire gays who complain about homophobic behavior have never taken place.
If the “split” were the problem, this would have triggered an identical firestorm. However, these people are Democrats, which demonstrates the basic truth of outing: it is based solely on party affiliation, not on action, and serves, not as a means of punishing homophobia, but as a means of punishing those who do not conform to the belief that homosexuality requires unflinching loyalty to the Democrat Party.
o.k., but you haven’t really made a case for that (here), in principle.
It’s a simple case; unless you would support it in every instance, including to yourself, don’t do it.
If you would have qualms about a right-wing group actively trying to get gays fired from their jobs by harassing and publicizing their sexual orientation, then why do you support other gays doing it?
I think you misinterpret.
Very little room for misinterpretation here.
He added, ?The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.”
There are strong progressive strains in much of ‘evangelicalism’, much of which does not have to include Pat Roberston or the Bush-Administration’s above-ground highway to “Freedom University”.
Indeed. But unfortunately, it doesn’t include the Democrat Party’s support of unlimited abortion and its mocking of Christians as superstitious and ignorant “Jeebus” worshipers, either.
Given the choice between people who overemphasize something with which they agree and people like Dean and Clinton, who openly court and support those who mock and namecall Christians, which do you think they will choose?
To put it another way. If I hid my Polish ancestry, and as a politician actively persecuted and tried to dehumanize the Polish people, you can bet that my family would not stand idly by. I would no longer be welcome at family events, and my birth certificate with my real name and ancestry would be plastered all over the news. This is no different.
So your family, rather than accept you and your different opinion, would start an all-out war, attempting to humiliate, harm, ostracize, and punish you in every way possible, including publicly.
You have a very strange and dysfunctional family.
I highly doubt that the vast majority of families would set out to harm and destroy the life of one of their members who did things with which they didn’t necessarily agree. The only kind of family who would do as you describe is one obsessed with appearances and external perception that values conformity above all else — and has no qualms about hurting its own members in a most horrific fashion to maintain it.
Is that really what gays are like?
It’s quite simple, those that think we do not deserve equal rights are our enemies. Those who attack is in print, media, or in our governmental bodies are our enemies.
Then, as I outlined above, Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf are your “enemies” — since they are working for your “enemies”.
Interesting….all of a sudden, you can come up with all sorts of excuses and spin for why you should “hide, coddle, and keep the secrets of (your) enemies”
Despite the typical partisan heat between the Demopublicans and Republicrats in the last several posts, the reality is that outings are likely to continue and the “closeted public figure protected by the press and the system” will cease to exist.
Rage against it all you like, but the free market (and open communications channels) will assure this, regardless of the motivations of the participants in the outing process.
Embrace the new paradigm, boys and girls.
Sorry, but I’ll disagree that Mike Rogers is only helping Democrats.
Take Virginia Republican Congressman Ed Schrock [First District, Norfolk]. Had Rogers delayed posting the story until AFTER the filing deadline in 2004, the Republicans would have been stuck with Schrock in the General Election and they could very well have lost.
But, since Rogers struck a week or so BEFORE the filing deadline that year, Schrock announced his retirement and the Republicans just nominated someone else, who serves in Congress to this day.
Rogers helping the Democrats? I think not.
Because, in the cases I cited above, “outing” and attempts to publicly humiliate/harass these people who are openly supporting and working for FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who pander to Pat Robertson, and people who fire gays who complain about homophobic behavior have never taken place.
If one wants harassment or humiliation to stop, then that is part of “the ethics” of what we are talking about. That, however, is quite different than simply making it know publicly that someone is gay or lesbian.
Each of the “cases” you mention are a little different. The last one, about Howard Dean, isn’t about “outing” – it seems that everyone in the case was “out”.
If the “split” were the problem, this would have triggered an identical firestorm.
o.k.
So, going back to number 2 above, you are amplifying your reply that it IS all ideological? Or, are you just saying that all of the cases that you’ve observed so far seem ideological to you, even though you don’t think “outing” is solely an ideological concept?
It’s a simple case; unless you would support it in every instance, including to yourself, don’t do it.
What is “every instance”?
Do you mean to suggest that we cannot tell what is anti-gay behavior, conclusively, so we should just give up altogether? That seems pretty extreme. I think we can tell what is bigotry and what is not. I think we can also judge motives and character, when we suspect that people are coddling bigotry or not. We do this all the time for other issues, so I’m not sure why sexual ethics would be ‘off limits’ or something for ‘every instance’.
If you would have qualms about a right-wing group actively trying to get gays fired from their jobs …
Frankly, I have no doubt that my sexuality is tracked in some employer database somewhere and/or would show up on a background check. What’s more, I can surmise that, while there are not “right-wing groups” actively involved, there are those within companies content to ‘keep gays in their place’, which may well include firing the “uppity ones”. (I also think there are some people who don’t even know they are doing it).
So, I think this is already occuring, to some unmeasured degree (that perhaps should be measured, since some assert boldly that equality is already here). It’s not a question about qualms about it, since it appears to be a reality.
What’s more, the point of such right-wing groups wouldn’t be to end support of a hypocrisy that supports a general homophobia, it would be to enforce a discrimination that perpetuates one, so I’m not sure the two choices you present are symmetrical, comparable.
The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.
o.k. I see now more directly what you had in mind from that article.
Yes, based on that, there is openly anti-gay bias formally within the Democratic Party.
However, there are mitigating factors. The Dems are actively trying to keep the door open to changing that. The Republicans are, half of them are trying to close the door with Constitutional Amendments, and the other half are being dragged kicking-and-screaming to what will likely be a capitulation, rather than a destination.
So, even among options that are both imperfect, we can still make moral choices, if that’s the right way to phrase it.
which do you think they will choose
I think they will become less party-centric. Sometimes they will vote Blue and sometimes Red.
Embrace the new paradigm, boys and girls.
hey, why not expand the ‘civil dialog’ one more dimension – here goes:
There are still plenty of parts of the country that are deeply closeted and the focus on Washington is maybe misplaced as THE cauldron of homophobia. Read the comments on this forum about what is going on inside Ohio, right now, in terms of attitudes. It’s still worse down in Alabama, where they still handle it the Southern-way, a closed open-secret, even in death (check CC’s blog, if you want to see what I mean).
The forces propping up the closet are still real and likely to be around for a while. Another generation?
“So your family, rather than accept you and your different opinion, would start an all-out war, attempting to humiliate, harm, ostracize, and punish you in every way possible, including publicly.”
Come on now, we’re not talking about a “difference of opinion” It’s not I like green and they like blue. If I have to explain an attack and a reasonable defense, I don’t know what to say. Although i’m glad you’re not part of our armed forces, because it would appear you’d greet an invading force with the sentence, “I respectfully disagree but support your opinion.” as they are firing upon you.
Please point to the place where I defended “Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf” cause considering that I don’t know who most of those people are, I’d love to see what I wrote about them.
Although i’m glad you’re not part of our armed forces, because it would appear you’d greet an invading force with the sentence, “I respectfully disagree but support your opinion.” as they are firing upon you.
So you equate supporting the FMA and state constitutional amendments with shooting at people.
Two things.
First, that’s flipping hilarious in terms of out-of-proportion responses.
Second, the flagrant hypocrisy in it is amusing, especially in light of the following.
Please point to the place where I defended “Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf” cause considering that I don’t know who most of those people are, I’d love to see what I wrote about them.
Why, they’re gay leaders of HRC and the Democrat Party.
Who give money to, have their groups give millions of dollars to, endorse as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and work for both FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, and politicians who pander to Pat Robertson and fire gay people for complaining about homophobia.
Now, what did you say about those behaviors?
It’s quite simple, those that think we do not deserve equal rights are our enemies. Those who attack is in print, media, or in our governmental bodies are our enemies.
And what else did you say?
I don’t agree that the gay community should be expected to hide, coddle, and keep the secrets of it’s enemies.
So go wage all-out war against Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf.
So go on. You and Mikey Rogers like to talk tough; go after these people who are clearly aiding and abetting politicians who, by your own definition, are our enemies, and worse, doing it with tens of millions of dollars from their gay organizations.
To whatishisname:
Yes, based on that, there is openly anti-gay bias formally within the Democratic Party.
However, there are mitigating factors.
Thank you for making the hypocrisy of outing so open and blatant.
Because, simply put, every excuse you make for Democrat homophobia makes it more obvious that it’s not homophobia that concerns you; it’s party affiliation.
Therefore, we can clearly state that outing has nothing to do with homophobic behavior, but everything to do with deliberately attempting to harm Republican gays and Republicans.
You and Mikey Rogers like to talk tough
Again, it seems like you are mostly upset by their tactics (harassment) and bravado (rhetoric).
Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf
Is that ‘the book’ on Democratic homophobia in recent times?
That list just doesn’t seem like blindness to how the principles are being misapplied on ideological grounds, when this list reads so differently in comparison: Dick Army, Rick Santorem, Newt Gingrich, Richard Cheney, Larry Craig.
Besides, what if the reply to what you view as an exceptionalism for some democratic postures in pursuit of larger goals ends up getting computed as an exceptionalism that gets applied to most GOP staffers, as Richard suggests above in his article?
In other words, your criticism is that the world doesn’t parse perfectly for those who have a pure theory of ‘outing’, but the answer might be an ethics that recognizes that by reserving ‘outing’ as a remedy for certain cases, mostly.
every excuse you make for Democrat homophobia makes it more obvious that it’s not homophobia that concerns you …
Not completely, because what the “excuse” is and whether it is realistic matters a great deal. If *all* one said was, “they can do it because they are the good guys”, that might be cheap, but that’s not the explanation of why one “excuse” might be judged quite a lot differently than the others.
Put it another way: If someone has an HRC rating of “10″ and someone has a rating of “60″, what you are saying is that outing advocates have to reject them both. That may not be the case, although it might well be a consideration that tempers one’s rhetoric.
we can clearly state that outing has nothing to do with homophobic behavior…
I’m not so sure, so far, but I am willing to keep thinking about it. I think the most we can say is that it might feel that way because most of the hypocritical positions that are truly harmful are going to be found, like it or not, on the GOP side of the fence, and that might seem ‘unfair’, but it’s just an accurate description of the lay of the land in current times.
There are still plenty of parts of the country that are deeply closeted and the focus on Washington is maybe misplaced as THE cauldron of homophobia. Read the comments on this forum about what is going on inside Ohio, right now, in terms of attitudes. It’s still worse down in Alabama, where they still handle it the Southern-way, a closed open-secret, even in death (check CC’s blog, if you want to see what I mean).
The forces propping up the closet are still real and likely to be around for a while. Another generation?
Oh, I’m quite aware that closet cases argue that “things are different” where they are, and while Alabama and Ohio aren’t California, they’re moving swiftly too.
The whole thing will be a moot point, nationwide, in five years, tops.
Aside from all the apologist discussion for “closeted” gay republicans the point remains… gay republicans (or democrats for that matter) that support antigay legislation that has real impact on peoples lives, need to be shown for the hypocrites they are.
Then go to it, Richard. I gave you five names of gay people — Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf — who support antigay legislation and the politicians who push it. I even linked you to evidence that they did it. Go scream far and wide that they’re hypocrites whose lives should be destroyed.
And that leads us to this:
Besides, what if the reply to what you view as an exceptionalism for some democratic postures in pursuit of larger goals ends up getting computed as an exceptionalism that gets applied to most GOP staffers, as Richard suggests above in his article?
Please. If Richard really gave a damn about this, he could have done something when Rogers started doing it — three years ago.
Then again, maybe he did, although not what you think; if there’s one thing Republican gays have figured out from this, it’s that anything you tell Democrat gays has an amazing way of ending up being used against you, regardless of what they say to your face. For example both HRC and LCR publicly oppose outing, but paid HRC and LCR employees have openly aided Rogers’s outing and harassment campaigns — a fact which Rogers bragged about three years ago.
Both Aravosis and Rogers said they continue to collect information from their network of sources, which include employees of the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, and plan on outing more staffers and members.
In short, any GOP staffer who is giving any gay Democrat information is, at best, misguided and, at the worst, a fool. These are people who think nothing of trying to get you fired, say publicly that they see nothing wrong with destroying your life, and, while they may be nice to your face, are screaming “Jewish Nazi” or “self-loathing” or “kapo” or “Uncle Tom”, or any of the innumerable other charming names they have for gay conservatives and Republicans, when your back is turned.
There is no “exceptionalism” for GOP staffers, nor is there really “exceptionalism” for Democrat ones; the simple explanation is that outing and public harassment is motivated solely by political affiliation and has nothing to do with one’s actions. That is why Rogers says nothing as gay Democrats like Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, Andrew Tobias, Ellen Malcolm, and Steve Elmendorf openly endorse, support, work for, and channel millions of dollars from their respective organizations and gay donor bases into the campaigns and coffers of politicians who support the FMA, state constitutional amendments, pandering to Pat Robertson, and firing gay employees who complain about homophobia.
These are people who think nothing of trying to get you fired, say publicly that they see nothing wrong with destroying your life
But enough about Congressional Republicans, my dear man.
ND30 writes, “If Richard really gave a damn about this, he could have done something when Rogers started doing it — three years ago.”
This seems a rather desperate attempt to say something negative. I have never made a secret of my opinions, though having a regular column at Bay Windows since early 2006 has given me more of a forum. Mike Rogers only impinged on my consciousness a few years ago when he visited a GLAA meeting, and joined us for dinner afterwards during which he and I had quite a spirited argument. Suffice it to say that we have very different philosophies of activism. Rogers aside, I have been criticizing the self-defeating gay left for decades. Of course, I take a more nuanced view than ND30, which prompts him to attack me and caricature my views.
“Then again, maybe he did, although not what you think….”
I am not quite sure, but ND30 appears to be suggesting that I may have secretly joined in outing campaigns, and also that I am just another partisan Democrat. The first is baseless, and the second is contradicted by my entire record as an activist putting issues before party. In 1996, for example, I posted long lists on the Internet detailing Bill Clinton’s anti-gay record, because he had done a lot more things against us than HRC was acknowledging. I did this not because I was opposed to Clinton (I still voted for him as the best available alternatives), but because I object to partisan hacks disguising themselves as gay rights activists for the purpose of whitewashing their candidates’ records.
“both HRC and LCR publicly oppose outing, but paid HRC and LCR employees have openly aided Rogers’s outing and harassment campaigns”
At least HRC fired Lane Hudson when they learned that he had set off the Mark Foley scandal. But I suspect they were more offended by his indiscretion than by his actions.
ND30 says of gay Democrats: “These are people who think nothing of trying to get you fired, say publicly that they see nothing wrong with destroying your life….”
I do not see why it is useful to overgeneralize in this way. Of course there are people who fit ND30′s description. But to apply this to all gay Democrats is no more fair than to call all Log Cabin Republicans Uncle Toms.
“outing and public harassment is motivated solely by political affiliation and has nothing to do with one’s actions.”
This statement goes too far, as ND30 has a habit of doing. I agree that partisanship plays a role. But, as ND30 refuses to acknowledge, the Democrats, for all their faults (and they have many) are still a lot better on gay issues than Republicans. The reason people like Hilary Rosen supported Harold Ford (to whom I wouldn’t give a penny, so kindly don’t distort what I am saying) is because they were eager for the Democrats to take control of the Senate. Since the Democrats overall are better than the Republicans on gay issues, they view that as a good trade-off. I personally, as I have said, would not give Harold Ford a penny, and last year before the election I wrote a column in which I listed the HRC scorecard ratings of several Democrats to show that they were just as bad or worse than Mark Foley’s rating. I was glad to see Foley go, but my point was that lumping him in with Republicans who were consistently anti-gay (like Larry Craig) was simply false. No party hack would have written that.
But the greater point is that outing is a sleazy tactic that capitalizes on homophobia, and is therefore troubling even if it can be justified in particular cases.
There is no “exceptionalism” for GOP staffers,…
Well, never say never – maybe there is more “there” there than you are giving them credit for:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/09/post_3.html
But the greater point is that outing is a sleazy tactic that capitalizes on homophobia, …
That might be one of the “dissenting opinions” I was requesting, even if we can separate out the “sleaze” part, which is the pictures-en-flagrante, etc., if I understand your meaning fully.
God knows, I learned a lot about the modern history of outing, here. I might have thought that would be an advantage, because you can look at things with ‘fresh eyes’, but it may also forestall any “civil dialog” reaching a conclusion that doesn’t also include some kind of rapprochement.
I still have this sense, though, that there are probably just a few patterns or cases that repeat over and over and it ought not be hard to find a ‘common ethics’ about how to handle each one, even if judgment is involved.
Are we at a comparable moment, when a violation of protocol is needed to ?get things moving,? …
Brian says no, just wait, maybe five years and it will be a non-issue.
On the other hand, it does seem like there are a lot of people who might benefit from really scanning through their beliefs, like erasing their sexuality (not the details of their sex life, but their sexuality) because it’s “private” or “doesn’t matter” or “is what’s needed”.
At the end of the day, being closeted, gay, and Republican is enough to cause people to have concerns about someone’s fundamental beliefs and being out, gay, and Republican is enough to cause some to have concerns about one’s sanity. That’s just the lay of the land, until it isn’t any longer…at the finish line.
Just another sad apologist for the men in charge … pathetic gay men are being a norm … very sad … they would have made GREAT “houseboys” in the slave system. Disgusting to arque against outing ANY anti-gay gay person anywhere. Politicians, staffers, reporters, ANYONE ! Stop them before they hurt you. That is the bottom line – once they our outed the power system rejects them.
“These are people who think nothing of trying to get you fired, say publicly that they see nothing wrong with destroying your life, and, while they may be nice to your face, are screaming “Jewish Nazi” or “self-loathing” or “kapo” or “Uncle Tom”, or any of the innumerable other charming names they have for gay conservatives and Republicans, when your back is turned.”
HONESTLY we say it to your FACE … you are all those charming terms … you really are … and you deserve to be taken out for your SELF SERVING BEHAVIOR that endangers others – just so you can advance YOUR beliefs … it is not just HYPOCRISY, it is who you support and the choices you have made – any ANTI-GAY person is the enemy of freedom – so it is not just your hypocrisy or what party you belong to. and for who yo support. However a gay man who works for people who employ the tactic of attacking gay people for votes … well only someone who would do that could expect the victims of their behavior to note call them the names the describe them or work to take them out of playces of power (fired).
This seems a rather desperate attempt to say something negative.
Not really.
You see, if a gay person was being harassed at work and their employer threatened by a right-wing group if they didn’t fire them, you wouldn’t limit yourself to cocktail-party chatter with the group leader in question; as the record you like to cite indicates, you’d be launching mass protests, press conferences at City Hall, etc.
I’m merely pointing out that your own record indicates that, when you really care about something, you do far more than that. Therefore, since you’ve not lifted a finger on this issue for three years, I think it quite appropriate to say that you don’t care about it.
And that is a good part of the reason why I think you participated in it. As you’ve demonstrated, you can rationalize supporting homophobic Democrats quite nicely; it’s no great leap to rationalize harassment trying to get other gay people fired for “the cause”, especially when you’re surrounded with charming people like Rogers and rip3 who keep reminding you that those individuals are your enemies, subhuman, and not worth allowing to live. That is epitomized in your admittance that outing is a sleazy tactic that capitalizes on homophobia — which you then state is justifiable.
ND30, your unscrupulousness never ceases to amaze me.
“as the record you like to cite indicates, you’d be launching mass protests, press conferences at City Hall, etc.”
Um, that does not resemble my record at all.
Go ahead and make stuff up. Anyone who sees what you do and would trust your characterization of me is an idiot.
I wrote, “But the greater point is that outing is a sleazy tactic that capitalizes on homophobia, and is therefore troubling even if it can be justified in particular cases.” You characterize this as a justification of outing. Do you know what the word “if” means? Can you even read a sentence honestly? You know perfectly well that I was saying virtually the opposite of what you claim. As to my being “surrounded by” people like Rogers, I completely disagree with his approach to activism, and I just wrote a piece criticizing him. Of course I used a civil tone, which is something foreign to you. I didn’t even know who Rogers was three years ago. How exactly am I responsible for keeping track of what everyone else is doing, and how does my failure to denounce every radical leftist conceivably constitute tacit endorsement of them? These are non-sequiturs and cheap smears, and are typical of your habit of making everything as personal and vicious as possible. You are a sociopath, sir.
Um, that does not resemble my record at all.
Mhm.
If you really care about something, that one account alone makes it more than obvious that you’ll protest, make scenes at City Hall, and whatnot.
Clearly, you did not in this case — which is why I don’t think you really care about it.
Next:
I didn’t even know who Rogers was three years ago.
I find that a little to the left of impossible to believe — unless you simply weren’t reading the Washington Blade at all the entire summer of 2004.
As to my being “surrounded by” people like Rogers, I completely disagree with his approach to activism, and I just wrote a piece criticizing him.
Right — like how HRC and LCR both publicly criticized Rogers, claimed they disagreed with him, but, as I clearly cited above, had paid employees helping him behind the scenes.
I wrote, “But the greater point is that outing is a sleazy tactic that capitalizes on homophobia, and is therefore troubling even if it can be justified in particular cases.” You characterize this as a justification of outing. Do you know what the word “if” means? Can you even read a sentence honestly?
Of course.
Problem is, Richard, you’ve demonstrated you’re more than willing to justify sleazy actions if it helps the Democrat Party — such as Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, and others supporting, with tens of millions of dollars taken from their gay organizations, FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, and people who pander to the religious right and fire gay employees who complain about homophobia.
These are non-sequiturs and cheap smears, and are typical of your habit of making everything as personal and vicious as possible.
Blah, blah, blah.
That last is particularly instructive, given that it demonstrates how gay Democrats and their leaders turn on and destroy even LIBERAL gays who dare to be friends with Republicans. I thought it was so sweet to watch gay Democrat leader and public figure David Ehrenstein go around calling gays who didn’t agree with him “kapos”, and how Mike Signorile encouraged it.
Gay conservatives like myself, Richard, deal every day with these people namecalling us, comparing us to Nazis, and praying for our children to die of SIDS.
Yes, there are vicious and personal attacks being made. But it’s not by me.
Gosh, those hateful liberal Democrats, with their bad vibes and hateful rhetoric, sure are mean to ND-30.
Thank goodness we have the politicians in the Republican Party, who have never been known to make the sexual orientation of others a campaign issue — ever.
All of the polity can only hope to achieve the level of ethics in sexual orientation tolerance that the GOP sets, and can only pray that one day, the eternal oppression of the conservative homosexual by the Evil GayLeft CommieLibs will come to a close.
When that day comes, we shall all dine on cake and root beer and celebrate our entrance into nirvana!
To Richard Rosendall, and the IGF Participants ~
When I discovered this site last year, I was intrigued by its premise, and some of the thought-provoking content. I lurked for a while, then engaged, and then gave up on it.
Revisiting it today and reading Mr. Rosendall’s exchanges with ND30 reminds me why. The bitter, one-note diatribes from various contributors, regardless of the topic, destroy any opportunity for meaningful, civil discourse on these important issues. Whatever the topic, one can count on finding ND30′s “all gays are liberal Democrats who abuse poor conservative, Christian homosexuals” mantra or James’ “all gays (except me) are promiscuous fem-bots who march in gastly, embarrassing pride parades” tune. And that is tedious, boring and uninteresting.
Ultimately, I decided that engaging in discussion at IGF involved far more negative energy than positive. For that reason, I quit. Sadly, I encourage others to do the same. There is simply no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who has no interest in being rational.
Sadly, I encourage others to do the same.
For my own part, I *want* to talk to people who don’t share my views.
There is always negative energy – it’s up to *you* to develop the skills to diffuse it, to some measure.
Why censor diatribes, since they show a raw truth, too, on many topics (including even gross, homophobic ones)? It’s just important that they don’t crowd out ALL the discussion.
Although you bring up a good point, as I think outing is intrinsically an anti-classist weapon
No one has tackled this yet. If one looked at the rhetoric, you might conclude that. If one looked at the cases of staffers or elected officials or “elites” outed, perhaps its more of a mixed bag (measuring not by intent but by actual facts / social-class of those in cases).
How much does homophobia affect us all, even in the terms of this debate?
If you look at the rhetoric, those who are the most passionate about ‘outing’ and their supporters seem – seem – to be just as much in the grip of homophobia, sometimes, as do their hypocritical targets. It’s fairly clear that some people do feel that their ‘good’ choices to have come at a cost to them. This, in turn, makes them feel dis-empowered and, maybe, ‘outing’ is a way to restore balance, a feel powerful again.
There is plenty of internalized homophobia, too, which I always take to be in evidence when folks start relating to each other primarily in sex-only terms, like disparaging this one as a ‘carpet muncher’ or that one a ‘bitch’ or a ‘fag’ or saying things like, ‘that ass has seen more traffic than …’. You could argue that people are socialized to this form of discourse as a matter of course and not to make too much of it, and that might be easily understandable. But, individually and politically, it’s arguable that a re-socialization has to occur after that point, an additional awareness, in which it is *possible* to relate to each other in concerted and sustained ways without all that sexual cattiness, too.
In any case, if one thinks that an ethics of outing is possible, it would have to be governed by an aptitude for the pitfalls, such as those, on both sides of ‘the extremes’.
…unless you simply weren’t reading the Washington Blade at all the entire summer of 2004.
FTR, I wasn’t, and I do not even today – not by design, but I just never saw it as ‘required reading’, I guess. I don’t even recall it being a conscious decision …
Comments on this entry are closed.