IGF CultureWatch

A reader who e-mailed me this USA Today story, on cities in red states vying for gay tourist dollars, suggested calling it "Just shuddup and give us your money." I'd be more charitable. Most of these cities-Atlanta, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, maybe even Dallas-are to varying degrees far more gay-friendly than their states' typical smallvilles and rural areas. It's a positive sign that these cities are marketing to gays, and not so surprising that the religious conservatives are not making a fuss about it.

Actually, I wish they would-if social conservatives demanded that states start forfeiting income in order to placate their prejudices, local business interests would turn against them. And that would be a good thing. So maybe we need to "heighten the contradictions" (in Marxist parlance) and provoke a self-defeating rightwing backlash?

Mickey Kaus of Slate's Kausfiles argues that advocates of gay marriage are mistaken if they think that Brokeback Mountain's playing well in blue enclaves within red states heralds some sort of cultural shift, as some claim. It's a long piece with a fair measure of Kaus's queasiness toward gays but a caution worth considering, when Kaus warns:

If you think the visceral straight male reaction against male homosexual sex has effectively disappeared-look at Plano, etc. -you won't spend a lot of time trying to figure out the possible deep-seated, even innate, sources of resistance to liberalization, and you'll tend to be surprised and baffled by their persistence. At worst, you'll pass them off as sheer redneck bigotry-a proven way to lose the red states for good.

Andrew Sullivan responds that:

[A]ssuming a huge, overnight shift in sentiment toward gay men is foolhardy. At the same time, the pace of change these past couple of decades is astonishing. And can I really be blamed for being heartened by the way in which so many people, including many straight men, now seem able to deal with the idea of gay love?

Sullivan also scores a well-placed point about "putting love at the core of gay identity, rather than merely sex (while not being anti-sex at the same time)." I'd argue that while social conservatives may be focused on gay sex, gay activists have misstepped by single-mindedly focusing on "rights talk," either in the sense of access to government benefits or as an abstract call for "equality" (as Dale Carpenter explains so well here).

Love, however, is something much more comprehensible to those not typically predisposed to the liberal line. And that's my thought for this Valentine's Day.

I don't usually agree with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors when it issues yet another of its international resolutions (previous decrees condemned matters ranging from the Iraq war to overseas low-wage factories). But since I agree that freedom of religious expression is paramount, I can't fault the board for calling to end persecution of the Chinese sect Falun Gong.

For those who don't know, Falun Gong actually believes that gay people are an abomination. Its founder has called gays "demonic" and has said that "the priority of the gods will be to eliminate homosexual people." But they shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. And since S.F. has a huge Chinese-American (and Chinese immigrant) population, it makes sense for the board to express itself.

Now, back to business as usual for the supes, who are presently debating the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

I don't have anything pertinent to add regarding Muslim cartoon rioters who demand death for blasphemy. But Rick Rosendall's look at a particularly vile strain of the "queer" left that mixes Israel-hating with glamorization of Islamic militants is particularly timely. Also, Right Side of the Rainbow reminds us to take a look back at Paul Varnell's "Punishing Gays Under Islam" to understand why this matters.

A bit belatedly, let me mark the passing of Betty Friedan, the long-time activist whose 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique" launched the contemporary feminist movement. The linkage between what was known as the "women's liberation" movement and the genesis of the post-Stonewall gay movement will long be debated, although it's worth noting that, infamously, as remembered here, "in 1969 Friedan delivered her first public attack on lesbianism, labeling it a 'lavender menace' that would tarnish the entire feminist agenda. Enraged, many lesbians quit NOW."

Friedan lost that battle, as lesbians (and lesbian rights) became central to the women's movement.

As to the claim that feminism was the catalyst for the fight for gay equality, I'd argue that the most important precursor for the gay movement was the sexual revolution-and that the liberation of sex from marriage and procreation helped instigate both '70s-era feminism and a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality. That is, both "women's lib" and "gay lib" were part of that era's sexual "soup," though certainly early gay rebels took inspiration from feminists, as well as from anti-war protestors, civil rights activists and others.

Yet while feminism certainly challenged the rigid gender conformism that is a basis of homophobia, for a time in the late '70s and '80s the Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon faction was so anti-male-sexuality that it backed the notorious Meese Commission and made common cause with Christian fundamentalists to pass anti-pornography statutes (here's a critique from a pro-sex feminist). Clearly, this brand of feminism had turned completely against the ethos of sexual liberation that helped launched the gay movement, embracing a kind of sexual puritanism that, in demonizing male sexuality, helped demonize gay men.

Today, of course, gay activists strongly back the women's movement in what has become its central crusade: protecting partial-birth abortion on demand for minors without parental notification (preferably taxpayer-funded). And the women's movement is happy to support gay equality, except when a pro-abortion-rights candidate decides to reach out to the center by not supporting gay equality.

Comments worth noting. From EssEM:

The effect of feminism on gay men has been mixed. There is a deep strain of androphobia in feminism and gay men have imbibed a lot of it. Too many of us tend to avoid thinking of ourselves as men, and by that I mean not just male humans, but adult males who are neither women, girls or boys. We get blinded by all the jargon about patriarchal oppression and become alienated from ourselves.

From Jim G:

I think EssEm says it best for me. As a 52 year old gay man I lived through the sexual revolution and became used to (though uncomfortably) hearing "women's rights" and "gay rights" used in the same sentence. I came to the conclusion that this happened because we were supposed to be sharing the same enemy, "the heterosexual male."

I eventually "left the Left" because I was tired of hearing about the oppression of the Patriarchy, how if I was compassionate, just, understanding it was because I was in touch with my "feminine side" and of course all the other negative attributes were that "other side." i.e. masculine. The phrase "behind every great man is a great woman" developed a subtext which said..."unless he was doing something bad, then he was acting on his own, the Patriarchal slob."

I heard how men were the competitive, aggressive ones (not posed as a compliment) though whoever said that never worked in an office full of women. Women would tell me how terrible men were when they were in positions of power, but when I mentioned Mary Tudor, Catherine DeMedici, even Elizabeth the First (to name just a few) I would get the blank stare.

And on and on. Aside from the depictions of American Indians that I received as a child, I believe that feminism ranks right up there as one of the great lies of my lifetime.

Focus on the Family, the huge Colorado-based "family values" group, is promoting a kind of statewide partnership bill that would expand legal benefits for unspecified unmarried households (including 'roommates,' relatives, friends, and by default same-sex couples). Of course, it's doing so in an effort to derail an actual civil unions bill for gay partners that the state is also considering.

This development is interesting on several levels. For one, anti-gay loony Paul Cameron has denounced Focus and its leader, James Dobson, in no uncertain terms for selling out. But it may be that Focus, unlike Cameron, realizes it must make some accommodation to "nontraditional" households if it's going to maintain credibility. Or maybe its leaders aren't the Nazi-like monsters of gay fundraising letters and are seeking some sort of (from their view) fair compromise.

More interesting still, however, is that by supporting a measure that can apply to shacked-up straights, the group really is endorsing a "marriage lite" that grants state-provided bennies to those legally entitled to marry but who just don't wanna make that level of commitment, and which could thus weaken the institution of matrimony. But Focus would rather risk this than allow legislation which specifically recognizes that gay people exist and are entitled to at least some semblance of spousal rights, which might then pave the way for gays to actually wed.

As in Maryland, where Republicans tried to revive a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the floor of that state's House of Delegates, but Democrats squelched the move. Kudos to them. Still, Tim Maloney, who served for 16 years as a Democratic member of the Maryland legislature, blasts gay marriage proponents.

More Recent Postings
01/29/06 - 02/04/06

It was a nightmare-inspiring crime: an individual with a history of antisocial behavior (and a fondness for Nazi regalia) walked into a Massachusetts gay bar and attacked the patrons with a hatchet and handgun, sending three men to the hospital, one with critical injuries. Time to play politics, boys and girls.

From NGLTF: Rhetoric of religious right continues to fuel violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Excerpt:

Today's attack on men in New Bedford gay bar points to climate of hate created by right-wing obsession with homosexuality. ... The hatred and loathing fueling this morning's vicious attack on gay men in New Bedford is not innate, it is learned. And who is teaching it? Leaders of the so-called Christian right, that's who. ... The blood spilled this morning is on their hands.

I'd describe this rhetoric as, at best, hating the hater, or demagoguery for demagoguery-excerpt at least the religious rightists tend to make some distinction about loving the sinner but not the "sin."

As bad as Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and the 700 Club are, they are not Nazi equivalents. Most Americans get this, and when gay groups suggest otherwise they simply discredit themselves.

From HRC: Anti-gay hate crime in Massachusetts is enraging reminder of need to pass law. I agree; walking into a bar and shooting people really ought to be against the law. Glad to hear that HRC is on the case.

Let's note a few things: the attack occurred in Barney Frank's district; in a state that has had state hate crimes statutes and gay anti-discrimination protections on the books for years; where the police and public authorities have reacted swiftly and, apparently, without laxity. So how would federalizing hate crime law have helped?

More: It's all over. And there will be no hate crimes trial.

The L.A. Weekly shines a spotlight on Hollywood hypocrisy, with many Academy members refusing to even view Brokeback Mountain, and the Screen Actors Guild shutting out Brokeback entirely, preferring Philip Seymour Hoffman's asexual Capote portrayal (and minstrelsy Sean Hayes) to nonstereotypical portrayals of gay lives.

Writes columnist Nikki Finke:

Frankly, I find horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually pose as social liberals that they're disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex. Earth to the easily offended: This movie has been criticized for being too sexually tame. Hey, Academy, what are you worried about: that you'll turn gay...

Apparently, Larry David isn't an anomaly. In Tinsel Town, they love gays-as long as they have plenty of swish.
--Stephen H. Miller

In a Tue. Wall Street Journal op-ed (also available here), David Boaz writes of libertarians unrepresented by either politicians or media:

Gallup also found-this year as in others-that 20% are neither liberal nor conservative but libertarian, opposing the use of government either to "promote traditional values" or to "do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses."

[But] Democrats stand like a wall against tax cuts and Social Security privatization. Republicans want to ban abortion, gay marriage and "Happy Holidays." It's not just Congress-in Virginia's recent elections, all the Democrats were tax-hikers and all the Republicans were religious rightists. What's a libertarian to do?

He concludes:

According to [exit] polls, 17 million voted for John Kerry but did not think the government should do more to solve the country's problems. And 28 million Bush voters support either gay marriage or civil unions. That's 45 million who don't fit the polarized model. They seem to have broadly libertarian attitudes. In fact, it's no secret that libertarian voters make up a chunk of America. But you'd never know it from watching TV-or listening to our elected politicians.

The tragedy of our political system is that the two parties and their activists fundraising networks use the worst propagandistic means to keep their respective donor bases whipped into a crazy/angry frenzy. I'm reminded of the words of W.B. Yeats:

The centre cannot hold ...
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

More. We've now posted Paul Varnell's "Neither Liberal nor Conservative," with further insights about polarization.--Stephen H. Miller