IGF CultureWatch

Brokeback Mountain continues to demonstrate why it was not only the best film of the year (not withstanding the Academy's snub), but one of the most significant of its era. This commentary, for instance, looks at how it speaks to and for oppressed gays in Arab countries.

The leftwing Radical History Review shines a light on just how far out of the mainstream some "queer theorists" and activists are. The RHR, in calling for papers for a "Queer Futures" issue, notes that:

[F]ilms featuring gay characters and themes are celebrated by mainstream audiences...; "gay marriage" has emerged as the central civil rights cause for powerful organizations like the Human Rights Campaign; urban activists and civic boosters promote "gay business districts" as a means for achieving visibility and equality; and multibillion-dollar markets targeting gay and lesbian tourist dollars are booming

Sounds pretty good, right? Wrong:

[P]rominent lesbian and gay rights organizations increasingly embrace agendas that vie for acceptance within contemporary economic and political systems, thereby abandoning their earlier commitments to economic redistribution and protecting sexual freedoms. This shift has made strange bedfellows out of lesbian and gay rights organizations and social conservatives: both endorse normative and family-oriented formations associated with domestic partnership, adoption, and gender-normative social roles; both tend to marginalize those who challenge serial monogamy and those-including transgender, bisexual, pansexual, and intersex constituencies-who feel oppressed by a binary gender or sex system.

And on it goes, concluding that such strategies "threaten to erase the historic alliance between radical politics and lesbian and gay politics."

It's actually hard to envision what the radical queer left wants other than ripping apart society and all its norms, including property rights and any remnants of sexual inhibition/self-discipline, to be replaced by a redistributionist order that must be both infantile and totalitarian in nature.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a policy based on animus toward gays, is losing support in the military if not in Washington, the Boston Globe reports:

A growing body of evidence that attitudes have changed within the ranks. A recent study by the Naval Postgraduate School found that a majority of military personnel felt comfortable around openly gay colleagues....

Overall, the number of soldiers facing discharge under the policy has dropped steadily-from 1,273 in 2001 to 906 in 2002 and 787 in 2003, the most recent year available....

[L]awyers who represent [gay] soldiers...attributed the change both to a growing acceptance of gays within the ranks and to the military's need to keep more highly trained soldiers in the Iraq War.

But the Democrats won't make an issue of the ban, and Republicans will use their support of it as another way to energize the "base."

DADT, in fact, is one more example of how both parties use hot-button emotional appeals to the easily frightened and poorly informed (i.e., blocking Social Security reform and opposing freer trade on the left, blocking immigration reform and trying to amend the consitution to ban gay marriage on the right) to keep their respective bases crazy-angry at all times.

More Recent Postings
03/12/06 - 03/18/06

Andrew Sullivan spells out why same-sex marriage is not a "slippery slope" to polygamy:

I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with. Polygamy is a choice, in other words; homosexuality isn't. The proof of this can be seen in the fact that straight people and gay people can equally choose polyandry or polygamy or polyamory, or whatever you want to call it. But no polygamist or heterosexual can choose to be gay. If you're not, you're not

The polygamy threat is increasingly being used as a cudgel against gay marriage, and the premiere of HBO's "Big Love," about a polygamous suburban household with "Desperate Housewives" kinds of issues, may cause the rhetoric to get even hotter. I found the new series well-produced and interesting, but (compared with some hard-hitting documentaries I've seen) a sanitized view of what polygamy is really about-which is typically not good for the wives and children.

An interesting column, suggesting that attempts at persuading partisans who are committed to their beliefs is largely useless. Only political independents who haven't invested emotionally in a stance, one way or the other, are largely reachable. So attempting "to point out contradictions, dishonesty and hogwash in politics and rhetoric [is] probably a waste of time."

I'd say this rings true for the most part. Logic is largely irrelevant in most political arguments, and completely futile with ideologues on either the left or the right. It's all about my team and your team-a point David Boaz makes here.

More. I can attest to the prevalence of this nonthinking. Whenever I argue why I believe an aspect of the predominant gay movement strategy is wrong-headed and counter-productive, the comments pour in accusing me of working against the home team or aiding the other side by fostering disunity-some even suggest I couldn't possibly be gay (I'm a front!).

Beware of ideologues, for they have shut their critical minds down for the sake of fealty to this or that "community."

Out-lesbian columnist Deb Price makes the case for not giving unquestioning support to the taking-us-for-granted Democrats. If I had written this, the lock-step party stalwarts would be all over me. Maybe they'll listen to a liberal like Price (but don't bet on it).

Ford Motor Co. has upped its advertising in gay publications-and its donations to gay groups-and is again the target of a boycott by the Christian right's American Family Association.

Right Side of the Rainbow cheers Ford, as I do regarding non-biased ad strategy. If Ford thinks advertising in gay publications will sell more cars and trucks, that's all that should matter.

But should corporations donate to groups advocating a political agenda? I guess if it fits into an overall strategy to increase shareholder value via the gay market. But The Truth About Cars website argues that "Surely the company should take a politically neutral line in ALL its charitable contributions, restricting their largesse to apolitical organizations" rather than weighing into contentious political struggles.

Ford, the above website reports, has made large cash contributions to groups including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. If I were a straight Republican, I don't know that I'd want my car-buying dollars to support groups that almost exclusively support very left-liberal Democrats and take political positions I don't agree with. Heck, I'm gay and NGLTF's political positions on non-gay issues (and some gay issues!) deeply offend me.

So in general, I don't see the rationale for corporations to get involved in social-issue politics. And yes, I'm aware that corporate money also goes to Republican candidates and causes. But usually this is more directly connected with business aims (i.e., perpetuating corporate subsidies). I think that's wrong, too, although congressional politics today seems largely driven by who stuffs the most dollars into which politicians deep pockets.

The White House tweaks regulations about security clearances for gays. As the AP story reports:

The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

So apparently, under the old language sexual orientation wasn't to be taken into account; now it can be a factor (i.e., if it might make someone more susceptible to blackmail). Gay groups and leftwing blogs are up in arms. But others say this was always the case anyway, in practice. Yet, why then make the change (the left says to placate the religious right, which may or may not have anything to do with it). I'd want to know more about this-from an objective source.

More. Apparently, none of the anti-gay groups and sites are making any hay over this. Make of that what you will.

The Netherlands' plan to test would-be Middle Eastern immigrants about that country's nondiscrimination and same-sex marriage laws, along with showing them pictures of two men kissing, is no doubt provocative but most likely will be ineffectual-as with most overly idealistic approaches to solving social problems. I somehow doubt it will keep out the hardcore Islamists who see themselves as the frontwave of a beachhead leading to a Europe under Sharia law, and will quite likely serve to spur their already immense sense of victimhood (i.e., at being forced to endure still more of the insults of the infidels).

More. From a commentary in Britain's The Telegraph, about the situation in the U.K.: "The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities. ... The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that."
--Stephen H. Miller

I saw TransAmerica last night and must report that the only thing I liked about the film was Dolly Parton's Oscar-nominated (but losing, natch) song.

It did drive home, however, just how different transgendered people are from gay people. Sorry, but the desire to obliterate your born-gender identity (and, specifically, your detested sexual equipment) in order to live, usually, as a heterosexual has little to do with the gay experience-or simply with same-sex attraction. But "LGBT" activism thrives on obscuring this difference as if it were merely one of degree, further confusing the public regarding the nature of homosexuality.

More. Some impassioned debate in the comments, as in this excerpt:

Bobby: I'm sick of transsexuals saying "we fight for the same cause." No we don't. You people fight for transgendered bathrooms, birth certificates that say "male, female, other," and the elimination of sexist terms like "him" or "her." Your problems are not my problems, your issues are not my issues.

Anonymous: We're not all Kate Bornstein any more than all gays are Harry Hay or all blacks are Malcom X. We're not trying to destroy the notion of sex any more than gays are trying to destroy the notion of marriage--some radicals certain want each of these things, but most of us do not, in both cases.

Still more. Interestingly, queer theorists and many LGBT activists push for the "T" because, for them, it represents the "transgressive" edge of gender rebellion. Yet for many actual transgendered people outside the hothouse of academic-inspired activism, aligning their gender identity with physically reconstructed bodies allows them to better conform to normative gender assumptions.

There is a huge disconnect here between radical fantasia and reality (what a shock!).