Culture & Identity
The Facebook embed cuts off the full comment, but what the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., posted was:
We confirmed today the Washington film festival “Reel Affirmations” actually rejected “The Lavender Scare” for screening this fall. What film was their “Centerpiece” selection? “Apricot Groves”, an Armenian/American trans drama/romance–“Aram returns to Armenia to propose to his girlfriend….” ! After more than 50 screenings nationwide, from Tampa to Fresno, with TEN “Best of Festival” awards, and a major focus on Frank Kameny’s advocacy, “The Lavender Scare” has yet to be screened in Washington, DC.
Today’s dominant view:
Denise Young Smith, Apple’s first vice president of inclusion and diversity, is resigning from her position after less than a year. Smith’s announcement follows the response to comments she made during a panel discussion in October. As reported by Quartz:
When asked whether she would be focusing on any group of people, such as black women, in her efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse Apple, Young Smith says, “I focus on everyone.” She added: “Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”
Young Smith went on to add that “there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.”
For the heresy of viewing life experience as being as central to a diverse workforce as is race, sexual orientation or gender identity, Young Smith (at the very least) felt pressured to resign.
And Democrats wonder how it could be that so much of the white working class has abandoned the party of progressivism.
.@Apple fires Diversity Chief for suggesting that intellectual diversity is important too.
Wrongthink has no place in Silicon Valley.https://t.co/ea0TAF1rK5
— Jon Stewart Mill (@RoundSqrCupola) November 17, 2017
The author confuses Log Cabin Republicans with GOProud. Also, here’s a more historical view (albeit less politcally correct) of the patrons of the Stonewall Inn who fought back.
I’m so old, I remember when The Advocate celebrated gay male subcultures (other than drag) and gay male eros, for that matter.
Bawer also writes:
Stryker’s Facebook posts make a few things clear: she considers pretty much everybody who falls outside her comfort zone of “creative, intellectual, political queer folks” to be a Nazi, fascist, or white supremacist whose freedom of speech should be quashed. She has only contempt for the First Amendment. And she fully accepts the use of violence by her ideological confrères. One curious aspect of her politics is her repeated assertion that when she shuts down conservatives she’s crushing anti-Semitism. Can she sincerely believe that there’s more Jew-hatred today on the right than on the left? Or is she simply one of those leftists who prefer to close their eyes to some of the opinions held by their comrades-in-arms?
Playboy has been supportive of GLAAD, at least in the organization’s early days. I suppose GLAAD’s current leadership prefers Harvey Weinstein’s money.
And from Camille Paglia:
More. From the religious conservative Calvinist International comes a reflection on Hefner that in many ways mirrors what the feminist-left says regarding objectification of women and all that (e.g., in porn “the body of the other is just a collection of holes within which you can find different forms of stimulation and release”), but adding in a critique of homosexual relations. And the essay notes:
In porn men can escape from the limitations that actual woman place upon the satisfaction of their sexual desire and get sexual release on their own libidinous terms.
He further writes:
Our attention is increasingly being diverted to so-called “intersectional” issues outside the shared realm of essential matters of LGBT equality or community-centric concerns – accompanied by the attendant presumption that sexual orientation conveys proscribed political perspectives. Moreover, this implies there is now a lot less on the “gay agenda” commanding group attention.
We witnessed this dichotomy last summer when “No Justice No Pride” radicals pilloried wholesale the LGBT community and local Pride celebrations in multiple cities for not protesting pipelines, prisons, police, and the lending policies of banks.
And he adds:
If we’re to expand our sights on issues of community concern, we are notably casting our gaze in the wrong direction.
Given that LGBT entrepreneurs and small-to-moderate-size enterprise owners and operators are widely estimated to represent fully 10 percent or more of our demographic cohort, much higher than that of the population as a whole, community leaders might better turn their attention toward issues of concern to those engaged in business.
It didn’t have to be this way, but once the academic left takes control this is what happens. Not that this is anything new (e.g., see my 1994 post Masculinity Under Siege, and from 1999 Mary, Mary (Daly), Quite Contrary).