A recent blog post by David Link praised Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project for reaching out to gay youth who might be contemplating suicide. But not everyone is a fan. For example, LGBT blogger Femmephane takes exception, calling it “ageist garbage,” and arguing that “This is a video for rich kids … Telling our own stories from our incredibly privileged positions overwrites youth experience,” while “Promoting the illusion that things just ‘get better,’ enables privileged folks to do nothing and just rely on the imaginary mechanics of the American Dream to fix the world.” Whatever. Femmephane, by the way, responds to critics here. Life in the blogosphere.
No Good Deed Goes Unsavaged
ADVERTISEMENT
5 Comments for “No Good Deed Goes Unsavaged”
posted by Amicus on
Older Stephen, I have to say that when you derisively, Savagely sigh, “Life in the blogoshere” that you are overwriting my experience, with your chauvinistic, privileged ability to put titles -titles!- on posts, calling things “Good Deeds” when that is a myth, an urban legend in every sense of the term.
[How’d I do?]
1. The video promotes metro-centric and anti-religious sentiment.
Not subtle enough. There is a need to separate facts from opinion. Bullies use religiously-based verbal assault like “Adam and Steve” and their separateness from gay kids is wrongfully amplified by their religion, rather than rightfully mitigated by it, as it should be.
That fact is separate from whatever “lesson” that Dan or Terry take or convey from that.
If it is a myth that rural areas are not more bigoted, the truth of it is not in evidence. It is also a fact that most gays move to metro centers to find similar-minded folks, if not for more reasons.
2. The message is wrong.
The “message” alternatives to “It gets better” don’t fit into an easily workable title; and “it gets better” is rich enough precisely because it does not specify how or why or what that means, exactly. But, fundamentally, the passage out of school into adulthood IS a passage to “privilege” (and responsibility), so it’s not clear that one can’t actually talk from a ‘place of privilege’ and do so without being misleading.
3. Telling people that they have to wait for their life to get amazing… s a violent reassignment of guilt.
If you are deeply suicidal and you move to feeling far less suicidal, then, by definition, ‘it’s gotten better’. Nothing ageist or belittling about that.
4. Stories of how your mom finally came around, over-write the present realities of youth.
True. However, it would be important to “overwrite” present realities that are impermanent, but that feel like they are permanent.
5. The rhetoric about being accepted by family, encourages folks to come out– even when coming out isn’t a safe idea.
True, but a bit off the mark. No where did anyone imply an imperative to ‘come out’ right away to their parents. However, one would surely embrace coming out, at some time or another, as integral to a life that “got better”, on the whole, despite costs.
6. Bar story: vomit. It’s no coincidence that this is the first place where Dan and Terry mention queer space.
Facts are facts. They are not _necessarily_ normative.
7. We shouldn’t be talking, we should be listening.
No. It’s both. Usually, first talk/share, then listen back. [hint: it’s seldom youth who feel “overwritten” by adult stories, it is other adults who might.]
8. Stories of over-coming adversity: no thank you belittle lived pain, imply that a good ending is inevitable, and also undermine the joy and happiness in even bullied kids’ lives.
Yes and no. Only if stories are incomplete is this criticism justified. Dan and Terry did not belittle pain, but expressed how real it was. Dan himself was careful to suggest that the good ending was not a bed of roses. In general, though, this is a more deep criticism, but the goal of the project is not to teach spirituality-for-life, but to help kids get through an acute period. Thus, acceptable techniques might be different.
9. There is actually no path to change in this vision.
True, but there is no back-and-forth allowed with these kids, by definition, because gay adults can’t have that conversation. Almost all we can offer are a rational basis for Hope delivered quasi-personally on a video; a clear indication that adults, gay adults care; and the Trevor Project, right now.
10. Then we get a baby and go to Paris? WTF? This is a video for rich kids …
Literally, yes, but figuratively only so much. Some kids don’t imagine they are “worth” these things or may not even be aware of their possibility, considering it so remote. Actually hearing life stories from an adult is a way some kids “connect” with their imaginations, making them seem real.
As for homogenization, people do need to come to understand, in the right way, how their suffering or trial really is related to a larger picture. It’s not just commiseration, it’s broader than that; not an erasure, but a finding of place. Otherwise, their suffering could feel infinite and specific and that is, arguably, the fertile ground for suicidal tendencies.
posted by Jorge on
Look, I don’t much like Dan Savage either, and I agree with all of the criticisms, but he’s a part of this community, too. He has a certain responsibility. When the calling comes, one has to answer it.
I am certain that some people who view these videos are destined to die of suicide no matter how hard people want to save them. Worse, this could be an imperfect action. However, those youth will still have the experience of knowing they are loved and the chance to survive.
The possibility that a privileged, rich, white anti-religious liberal is in a position of trying to lead gay youth he has no connection to is a tragedy of mankind’s own making, and no one person’s fault. Despite Savage’s abject failure and flaws, it is making something of a difference. I’d post a video, too, if I knew how.
posted by marcus on
Look, I don’t much like Dan Savage either, and I agree with all of the criticisms, but he’s a part of this community, too.
Jorge, the point of the post is to make fun of “Femmephane” and his/her arch political correctness — thus, the clever parody of same by amicus.
posted by Bobby on
Femmephane is the typical progressive, these people have no faith in America, they think everyone is oppressed and only a socialist government can help you.
Dan Savage is a liberal, but he’s a liberal who knows the meaning of hard work, perseverance, struggle, and pulling his own weight without going on welfare or taking food stamps.
I also can’t believe the “ageist” crap, everyone was young once, it’s the young that have to learn from our advice.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, the point of the post is to make fun of “Femmephane” and his/her arch political correctness — thus, the clever parody of same by amicus.
Is the point is to make fun of the “arch” or to make fun of the political correctness? It’s a little hard to tell. We need the perspective Femmephane is bringing. The problem is, s/he brings it as a know it all naysayer instead of a reformer or activist.