With more of us each day living our lives openly within our communities and marriage on the horizon, what are some progressive "queer" activists worried about? Losing their "outcast culture," as recounted in this broadcast NPR story.
According to reporter Tovia Smith, it pains some to see gays want to marry or join the military instead of "challenging the underlying premises of those organizations." It's "selling out." Smith characterizes this as "Angst over the end of the edginess, excitement and radical chic that has made gay culture distinct."
But what other minority gets asked by the liberal media, to paraphrase, now that you're not oppressed, aren't you worried that you'll no longer be fabulous? Fortunately, for balance, our own Jonathan Rauch tells Smith that being fabulous is not what most gay people worry about on most days.
Nostalgia for the glories of marginalization aside, denunciations of gay ordinariness are mostly about politics, specifically the left's attempt to corner the market on gay authenticity.
More. A Washington Post column contrasts marriage vs. "community":
Sarkisian and Gerstel believe that de-romanticizing marriage might provide a caution to gays and lesbians who seek equal rights to marriage as heterosexuals. "Gays and lesbians," they wrote, "once noted for their vibrant culture and community life, may find themselves behind picket fences with fewer friends dropping by."
23 Comments for “Mainstream Too “Ho Hum”?”
posted by Brian Miller on
Speaking of the “coarsening” of the mainstream, check out this story from Illinois, where two high school students were charged with a hate crime — for writing an “anti-gay brochure.”
USA uber alles?
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2007/05/hate-crimes-laws-putting-ussr-in-usa.html
posted by Jack on
“Fabulousness” (whatever that may be) may not much of a concern to gay people who might not be thrilled with the back-to-the-het-Fifties model of gay progress.
Mainstream heterosexual culture has always severely devalued the single individual. And already it seems that if a gay person does not see marriage and child-rearing as the summum bonum of gay life that there is something amiss with you.
Jack
posted by Roy on
Mainstream heterosexual culture has always severely devalued the single individual. And already it seems that if a gay person does not see marriage and child-rearing as the summum bonum of gay life that there is something amiss with you.
I’m sorry, please explain.
Also, I don’t get why “gay radicals” are so upset that many gay and lesbians want to get married and raise children. If their aim is to be radical and perpetual outcasts, then they should be ecstatic! With the mainstreaming of gay culture, gay radicals are now even more (to quote a Harold and Kumar phrase)… eXtreme!!! To be “eXtreme!!!” – isn’t that what they want?
posted by Brian Miller on
Mainstream heterosexual culture has always severely devalued the single individual
I do agree with this. One of the favored pasttimes of “helpful” heterosexual colleagues of single straight folk is to “help” them “find someone.” The presumption is that the single individual is completely lost without a spouse/partner, and I know that many single straight friends of mine find it to be incredibly annoying.
I don’t get why “gay radicals” are so upset that many gay and lesbians want to get married and raise children
Not that long ago, being out was a revolutionary political act. Out gay activists felt like they were part of the bleeding edge and I think felt some brotherhood in that nonconformity. However, now that gay = part of the mainstream, their fundamental identity as “the vanguard of culture” is under threat.
Thus, their immediate reaction is to avoid “assimilation” and the inherent loss of separateness that said assimilation delivers.
posted by Roy on
Not that long ago, being out was a revolutionary political act. Out gay activists felt like they were part of the bleeding edge and I think felt some brotherhood in that nonconformity. However, now that gay = part of the mainstream, their fundamental identity as “the vanguard of culture” is under threat.
So these folks want to drag younger people in their 20s like me into the ghetto, something that we have never experienced and don’t wish to experience. Sorry, but I don’t appreciate it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Having to live in a counterculture because you have no choice is one thing. Staying there, even when you’re free to leave, is another.
The same crowd who pines for the good old days of “fabulousness” wants to romanticize a disconnection from family for its own sake. Some go as far as to cackle with glee over articles wishing crib death on the babies of prominent Republican lesbians.
This “counterculture-for-its-own-sake,” angry-itch stuff has got to stop. I’m encouraged by the good sense I hear from many younger gays and lesbians, who refuse to settle for the ghetto. That an entire generation is coming along, now, that can live freely in the sunshine and fresh air (and has the good sense to prefer this) is good news, indeed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Also, I don’t get why “gay radicals” are so upset that many gay and lesbians want to get married and raise children. If their aim is to be radical and perpetual outcasts, then they should be ecstatic!
The reason is, Roy, that if all gays are NOT radical and perpetual outcasts, these people cannot blame the fact that they are on being gay.
It’s a very typical mindset. Gay people are never crime victims; they are victims of “hate crimes”. Whenever a gay person is fired, it could never be for mundane things like performance issues or the fact that they’re committing numerous acts of sexual harassment; it’s always “homophobia” and “antigay discrimination”.
Ironically, assimilation and acceptance is exactly the opposite of what our gay leaders and the Democrat masters to which they answer want — because if that happens, they have no victimization issues to exploit and their tactics can be scrutinized — which would mean that their power over the community is shattered. So, like the Democrat Party’s encouragement of its minions to call conservative and Republican black people “house niggers”, “Uncle Toms” and “oreos”, they encourage abuse of and hatred towards gay conservatives, gay Republicans, and gay religious people.
Don’t believe me? John Aravosis and Mike Rogers, the masterminds behind the campaigns to harass and get fired gays who have strayed off the Democrat plantation, are both paid Democrat Party operatives — and receive help from HRC, as they themselves brag.
(And by the way, the linkage to LCR shouldn’t surprise you much either; there’s a whole slew of nominally Republican and conservative blogs that publicly decry Mike Rogers, but have no trouble allying with him when it would make them money.)
What this boils down to is that these “radicals” have gotten used to being able to order around vast armies of LGBTs who were convinced they had no other choice. Now we know better….but for every one of us that leaves, their excuse for antisocial behavior gets weaker and weaker.
That’s why they blast and mock those of us who choose not to equate our sexual orientation with radical and hateful leftist causes; they’re hoping to whip us back into compliance and back into our places in their Pink Army.
posted by BobN on
Other minorities may not get asked if they’re worried about losing their “fabulousness”, but any minority community justifiably both hopes for and worries about assimilation. I’ve certainly heard laments about the end of black culture with the middle-class diaspora from the racial ghetto. As an Italian-American only one generation removed from Italy, I can clearly see that much of what made Italian communities in America special has been lost.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to fit in while also trying to hang onto a community’s traditions.
posted by BobN on
@Lori, that’s odd, the 20-somethings that I talk to aren’t worried about having to “settle for the ghetto”. They’re upset that they can’t afford the ghetto…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There’s nothing wrong with trying to fit in while also trying to hang onto a community’s traditions.
Couldn’t agree more, BobN.
But the problem here is that many of the gay community’s “traditions” that these folks hold dear are incompatible with “fitting in”.
posted by Bobby on
If Tovia Smith bothers to look at the men looking for men section in craightlist he’ll see there’s still a lot of very radical gay men out there looking for bareback sex, orgies, domination and abuse, and all kinds of weird fantasies.
Straight people advertise for sex to, but they don’t post pictures of themselves fucking. So Tovia, don’t worry, there’s enough weirdoes out there.
posted by JohnM on
Since my partner and I bought a house with a yard, driveway, nice neighbors, and both same- and different-sex couples all around, I’ve come to the conclusion that there really is nothing radical or “prophetic” about being queer, and this has turned my life upside down. Now I have to actually grow up and take responsibility for what happens, and I can’t blame every bad thing on discrimination, homophobia, heterosexism, internalized homophobia, whatever.
This is scary!
posted by Brian Miller on
So these folks want to drag younger people in their 20s like me into the ghetto, something that we have never experienced and don’t wish to experience.
Fortunately, as an adult yourself, you can make your own decisions for yourself, regardless of what the “older gays” want.
the problem here is that many of the gay community’s “traditions” that these folks hold dear are incompatible with “fitting in”.
And on the flip side, the “traditions” of your conservative bretheren ensure that many suburban queer dads and lesbian couples aren’t permitted to “fit in” by simple dint of their genitals and chromosomal makeup. So while the antics of absolute radicals in the gay community can be tiresome, it’s important to remember that their existence is simply the purest form of reaction to the dying values of “male superiority” and hypocritical “I’ll judge you for things I do myself” that you (and your party) are passionate advocates of.
posted by Brian Miller on
there’s still a lot of very radical gay men out there looking for bareback sex, orgies, domination and abuse, and all kinds of weird fantasies
Actually, you’ll find that many of the anonymous men on those sites are married, Christian Republican conservatives who are probably ardent advocates of DOMA laws and perhaps even “reverends” in their own churches. Most self-respecting, out gay folks don’t need to solicit for sex on the internet — especially if they’re residents of cities with large gay populations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, what is interesting is that, despite the insistence of gays like Mr. Miller that closeted married white Christian men are the ones going online, having all the bareback sex and spreading disease, facts show that, in San Francisco alone, nine out of ten AIDS cases are open and out gay men (three out of four in the state of California) — and that they are the ones more likely to be looking for it online (in San Francisco, no less, where there is a comparatively enormous gay population).
Meanwhile, as UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and former chief of forecasting for the Global Program of AIDS of the World Health Organization points out, “all available epidemiologic data show that only the highest risk sexual behavior (multiple, concurrent and a high frequency of changing partners) drives HIV epidemics among heterosexuals or men who have sex with men, anywhere in the world.”
When taken in conjunction with the statistics above, what should be obvious is this; if closeted men were the primary people looking online for bareback sex and doing it, the vast, vast majority of HIV cases would be among heterosexuals and their children, since they would be passing it on to their wives. But instead, as statistics show, gays are the ones with the highest infection rates — meaning that, according to Mr. Miller, the closeted men he blames for sex ads and spreading HIV are spreading HIV when they have gay sex, but not when they have sex with women.
In short, despite evidence that clearly shows, via scientific fact, logical analysis, and study, that out gay men are the ones looking for, carrying out, and being infected by bareback and other irresponsible sex practices in overwhelming numbers, Mr. Miller claims that it’s “married, Christian Republican conservatives” looking for online sex and spreading HIV through unsafe practices.
posted by Brian Miller on
in San Francisco alone, nine out of ten AIDS cases are open and out gay men
Not a surprise — after all, San Franicisco ain’t exactly Paducah, KY. In fact, you spend a great deal of time ranting against its values, singing from your party’s hymn book on that front, so I find your sudden embracing of it as a “standard case” to be hilarious (not to mention curious). Your supposed relocation there is also rather suspicious, all things considered.
if closeted men were the primary people looking online for bareback sex and doing it, the vast, vast majority of HIV cases would be among heterosexuals and their children
The fastest growth of HIV is amongst self-identified heterosexual men who troll for gay sex online.
Anyone with any experience in browsing online forums such as gay.com, etc. can easily find married-to-women men seeking “hot times” and loads of closet cases who claim to be straight engaging in all sorts of rather unsafe practices.
Why, we need only look to your own Republican Party for dozens of examples of this. GOP luminaries like Ted Haggart, Mark Foley, Steve Gunderson, and on and on and on were all claiming to be God-fearing heterosexual men until their sexual practices were uncovered (often by their own party leadership who were, shall we say, “less than welcoming.”)
Perhaps, ND-30, you need a trip out of the gay ghettos and their related statistics and a voyage into the real world where the vast majority of queer folk live, to get a better taste of mainstream America.
posted by Brian Miller on
the insistence of gays like Mr. Miller that closeted married white Christian men are the ones going online, having all the bareback sex
Actually, here’s what I said:
you’ll find that many of the anonymous men on those sites are married, Christian Republican conservatives
How one translates my observation that “many” of the men on those sites are married Republican right-wingers into the idiotic assertion that I claimed they’re having “all the bareback sex” without looking like a totally dishonest horse’s ass remains to be seen.
Perhaps you’d care to explain it to me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Try again, Mr. Miller.
Your first assertion:
Most self-respecting, out gay folks don’t need to solicit for sex on the internet — especially if they’re residents of cities with large gay populations.
Which was why I cited San Francisco as an example. According to your theory, since it has a large gay population, out gays shouldn’t need to solicit for sex on the Internet here; however, as the study I pointed out cited, they were far MORE likely to do so.
The fastest growth of HIV is amongst self-identified heterosexual men who troll for gay sex online.
Well, let’s see what the CDC actually says.
Of particular interest (emphasis mine):
The stigma associated with homosexuality may inhibit some men from identifying themselves as gay or bisexual, even though they have sex with other men [38, 39]. Some men who have sex with men and with women don?t identify themselves as gay or bisexual [40]. Research among black men has shown that even if these men do not identify themselves as gay or bisexual, they do not engage in risky behavior more often than the men who do identify themselves as gay or bisexual [41].
In other words, the myth of the “down low”, or closeted heterosexual men being the ones who are spreading HIV throughout a helpless and innocent gay populace, is just that — a myth.
Of course, the reason why this fantasy needs to be perpetuated is obvious in the opening statement of that particular fact sheet:
In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 72% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].
The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group [3, 4].
And, if one digs even deeper into that, what one finds is that, given the demographics involved and based on all 50 states and the District of Columbia (as to avoid the “gay ghetto” claim that Mr. Miller makes), the overwhelming number of cases in which one could even attempt to argue that it was closeted men spreading HIV to gay men and to heterosexual women would be among black and Hispanic men — both of whom have rates of infection exponentially higher than the typical “white, Christian, Republican, conservative” that Mr. Miller insists should make up these cases.
Now, of course, Mr. Miller, we all know you don’t trust the CDC under a Bush administration — which is why I left the reference numbers in, so you can go to the medical and peer-reviewed studies on which the conclusions are based and try to tear them down.
How one translates my observation that “many” of the men on those sites are married Republican right-wingers into the idiotic assertion that I claimed they’re having “all the bareback sex” without looking like a totally dishonest horse’s ass remains to be seen.
Easy. One reads what you said and exactly how you phrased it.
The reason you are suddenly backpedaling is because I produced statistics that made it clear that your assumptions were logically and medically impossible.
And next up, perhaps my favorite:
Your supposed relocation there is also rather suspicious, all things considered.
So at first it was that I’m not gay; now it’s that I don’t live in San Francisco.
Why you are doing this is blatantly obvious; you don’t have facts to support your assertions, so you attempt to tear down those who challenge them.
But, like I said elsewhere, it just adds to the joke for those in the know.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Whoops….the “72%” figure comes from this CDC fact sheet, not the previous one.
posted by Roy on
Some go as far as to cackle with glee over articles wishing crib death on the babies of prominent Republican lesbians.
Oh my god, I saw that comment (by an unnamed not so prominent commenter on an unnamed prominent blog) too. People are nuts.
posted by alex on
Now I have to actually grow up and take responsibility for what happens, and I can’t blame every bad thing on discrimination, homophobia, heterosexism, internalized homophobia, whatever.
I’ve had that conversation with friends. Not everything that doesn’t go your way is discrimination (sexual, racial, gender, etc…). It could be that there was a better choice or I didn’t measure up.
But don’t take that to mean that I’m advocating the position that discrimination isn’t real. Just that sometimes it’s not as overt as we might think.
posted by Craig2 on
Hmmm. Some time ago, I wrote an article for Gaynz.Com entitled “Normalisation and the Discontented,” skewering those self-styled “radical queers” who don’t want same-sex marriage as an option for relationship rights*.
Nostalgia for the Days of Marginalisation is perverse. Do we really want to return to the
“good” old days of legalised police harrassment, criminality and psychiatric incacerceration and pharmaceutical abuse?
No, thank you. Look at Nigeria, Poland, Russia and Iran today for examples why “marginality”
ain’t bliss.
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand
*Even though I think civil unions are a good interim idea to achieve relationship rights and responsibilities, SSM has to be the ultimate goal, even if it
takes time to accomplish.
posted by fitz on
Sorry – Just testing the availability of these links I’m trying to post in another thread.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK