IGF CultureWatch

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!).

In "A Queer Taste for Muslim Rioters" at Frontpage Mag, Rick Rosendall criticizes the response to the Danish cartoons by Al-Fatiha, a group which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity, and their allies, families and friends."

Writes Rick:

[I]n response to an appeal by gay blogger Michael Petrelis to "Buy Danish," Al-Fatiha founder Faisal Alam wrote, "Instead of going out so quickly and 'buying' Danish products, maybe we should reflect on why the Muslim world is so angry at the depiction of its most revered religious figure.... how [the West's] domination of the Muslim world for centuries is now leading to this mass uprising...."

Comments Rick, "If we fail to appreciate and defend our cherished and hard-won Western liberties, we will lose them-and Muslims who dream of those same liberties will lose all hope of them."

More Recent Postings
03/05/06 - 03/12/06

Gay-baiting, and mendacity about one's gay-baiting, are a pretty good signal of overall moral laxity, as demonstrated in this story of a former top Bush domestic aide accused of a series of petty thefts:

Claude A. Allen, who resigned last month as President Bush's top domestic policy adviser, was arrested this week in Montgomery County for allegedly swindling Target and Hecht's stores out of more than $5,000 in a refund scheme, police said.... [Allen's lawyer] said he feels confident that Allen will be able to prove that the incidents were "a series of misunderstandings."

Allen stirred controversy as Helms's campaign spokesman in 1984 by telling a reporter that then-Gov. James B. Hunt Jr.-Helms's opponent-was politically vulnerable because of his links to the "queers." He later explained that he used the word not to denigrate anyone but as a synonym for "odd and unusual."

Sounds like one queer bird.
-- Stephen H. Miler

I applaud the gay spiritual group "Soulforce" for its efforts at creating a dialogue with students and faculity and conservative religious colleges. And it's heartening that some (though not all) of these religious institutions are welcoming that dialogue, as reports the Washington Post in "A Drive for Understanding":

At least eight of the 19 schools...not only have agreed to let the [Soulforce] activists on campus but have planned open forums for them, including talks in classrooms, visits with student leaders and the school president, panel discussions and, in one case, a coffee klatch titled "The Message of Brokeback Mountain." ...

Officials at the schools hosting the Equality Riders said...they saw an opportunity to replace the stereotype of the intolerant conservative Christian with a more compassionate "Christ-centered" response-albeit a response that still views homosexuality as a sin.

At how many liberal-left schools would dialogue with conservative religious activists be welcomed, rather than shouted down?
--Stephen H. Miller

Gregory King has penned in Bay Windows an excellent analysis of Brokeback Mountain's defeat (we hope to post a fuller version soon). King explains the significance of a Best Picture win, which can "generate tens of millions in additional revenue...while also serving as a green-light for films with similar themes in the future." And he explains:

The defeat of Brokeback Mountain was a serious blow, one that suggests that Hollywood feels unable to endorse a gay love story with its highest honor, even if it means overturning years of Oscar precedent to do so.

What precedent, you ask? King relates (and I didn't know this):

No film in history that has won the best picture award from both the Los Angeles and New York Film Critics Association has ever lost the best picture Oscar, until Brokeback Mountain. No film that has won the producers', directors' and writers' guild awards has ever lost the best picture Oscar, until Brokeback Mountain. No film that has won the Golden Globe, the directors' guild award and led in Oscar nominations, has ever lost the best picture Oscar, until Brokeback Mountain.

And he adds, "Make no mistake, the motion picture academy used a tire iron on Brokeback Mountain Sunday night.

And there's this sad fact:

Others report widespread distaste for Brokeback among the academy's older members, a distaste expressed by Tony Curtis, who told Fox News that he would not even see the film before voting against it. The New York Times on Monday quoted an attendee at an Oscar party who noted, without irony, that older academy voters opposed Brokeback Mountain because it "diminished" cowboys as iconic figures in movies.

King quotes LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan, who wrote:

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed Brokeback Mountain.

We still have a very long way to go, and Hollywood hypocrites, smugly congratulating themselves for being so very, very special, aren't helping.

More. The Washington Blade's Nevin Naff shows why Crash-derivative, recycled, contrived and overstated-wasn't the year's best.

Still more!!! Brokeback author Annie Proulx, writing in the Guardian: "Rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the Academy voters with DVD copies of 'Trash'-excuse me-'Crash' a few weeks before the ballot deadline."