Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

The Endless Game Between Homophobes and Assimilationist Gays

By Clarence Patton, Movement Vision Lab. Posted January 26, 2008.


Queers need to reframe the struggle away from assimilation and back to sexual freedom.
Advertisement

Back in the late '80s and early '90s, when I was just a baby activist in college, there was ongoing tension between two sects of "The Gays": those of us who felt it was important to be accepted given -- or even because of -- our differences and those who believed that it was important to emphasize the idea that we are just like straight people, with just a smidge of difference, and should be accepted despite our differences. In essence, the debate was between the "Queers" and the "Assimilationists." I was part of the first group. At one point, the tension between the two groups reached such a crescendo that the Queers copied images from lesbian and gay porn, bordered it with lines from the Declaration of Independence and wheat-pasted it all over campus with the tag line: We are not just like you. The Assimilationists were both incensed and mortified. We Queers were just tickled ...

As the LGBTQQI-rights agenda has shifted in recent years to closely mirror the assimilationist viewpoint, moving away from demanding "liberation" to a more pragmatic and achievable agenda aimed at political and social rights,. Is it possible that we have lost sight of a basic truth of our marginalization?

Historically, the marginalization of many communities in our country's history has been rooted in or justified by the need to maintain certain normative and oppressive sexual power structures.

For instance, the rationale among many for the subjugation of African-Americans after emancipation was to keep white women safe from the danger of black men. While most Americans have an idea that the nation has a history of lynching -- though likely no idea of the extent of lynchings, nor how far into the late 20th century they reached -- many are unaware that castration was often as much a part of lynching as the noose, a newly resonant image given events in Jena, La., at Columbia University and elsewhere recently. Every black man until recent decades knew not to look at white women for fear of being beaten or lynched and made an example of like Emmett Till. Lest he suffer the consequences, my own maternal grandfather left his home in Alabama for Chicago at age 12 after being accused of "looking wrong at a white woman."

Of course, the postslavery narrative of hysteria around black sexuality followed the antebellum/slavery history of white male subjugation and rape of black women (and by extension the emasculation of black men) contained its own schizophrenia around white and black sexuality. See: Strom Thurmond and others. Diane Roberts' book The Myth of Aunt Jemima does an excellent job of outlining the split personality way in which whites -- abolitionists and apologists alike -- reacted to and used black sexuality to their own ends.

By the 1960s, changes were on the horizon. Mainstream messaging and overt talk about the fear of sex between black boys/men and white girls/women went on the down-low. Instead, we developed new wink-and-nod codes to signify the same idea. There was the need to maintain "separateness" -- a drive that reached its crescendo around the unthinkable idea of black boys and white girls in school together. (Of course, no one was ever concerned about white boys and black girls together; see Strom Thurman and others.). There was the lack of integration on teen dance shows and at sock hops -- John Waters has managed to make a movie, a musical and the same movie again about this. By the 1980s this shorthand was so sophisticated that all Ronald Reagan had to do was go to Philadelphia, Miss., and declare that he was in favor of "states' rights." By the 1990s, Papa Bush had only to invoke Willie Horton. Whatever was said out loud, the subtext was always fear of black male sexuality.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gay shame, assimilation, glbt, glbtq, glbtqqi, homophobia

Clarence Patton is the acting executive director of the New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This week, there is more than enough disgust to "go round the twist"
Posted by: Prairie Waif on Jan 26, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Anti-Queer arguments based in religion, culture and the creation of children are all smoke screens to cover up something that's really very base: disgust."

I read in one of Canada's national Newspapers, The National Post, a glowing commentary on how Heath Ledger had portrayed the gay cowboy, Ennis del Mar with the aplomb of a much older thespian.

Then came the responses to the commentary. Everything you say is true and more. It wouldn't matter who died, or if anyone had, just talk about someone who is homosexual and, like in the paper, you are met with a barrage of total disgust with the pandering to religion and the destruction of "real" family values.

I can only copy the comments of a person who claims to be a mathematician for you to see that it really is about disgust cloaked amongst all the descriptives used by the author of this piece.


http://network.nationalpost.com
/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/23/
jonathan-kay-on-the-passing-of-heath
-ledger-and-the-unsettling-brilliance
-of-his-signature-2005-performance-in
-brokeback-mountain.aspx#comments


Paste each line to the next to form the URL to go to the address to read the lovely commentary and the rebuttals to this comment.

"I revolt at, and am revolted by, Brokeback Mountain: its theme and its reviews suggest (again unseen) abandonment of wife, child and loyalties for some abnormal and physically hazardous sexual aberration. How on earth can even Hollywood replace the wholesome boyhood images of life on the range, with well defined goodies, baddies, and guy gets gal in the end with this appalling theme of the unnatural and perverted?

I recall the onset of AIDS, the football ground size quilt of quilts made by loving families of the famous (Rock Hudson, Sol Mineo et al) and the unknown early victims of unnatural practices. Preceding (I theorize) their group awareness and conversion, paraphrasing "My boy friends are dying like flies, my anal surgeon is clear in his advice: I had better go back to the girls" with the tragediies and betrayals so implied:(end of theory).

Ledger's last hours await explanation: alleged drugs and masseur, but a twenty-eight year old appears to me to re-enact his film role of betrayal of wife,child and traditional happiness in loyalty and common sense. I am reminded to send a cheque to REALWomen of Canada, their great work in supporting traditional intelligence and decencies. "Brokeback will remain unseen and unmentionable by this mathematician"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» regarding the link... Posted by: emccready
» do the math... Posted by: hurricane hugo
False dichotomies must fail
Posted by: tomkara on Jan 26, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As John P. DeCecco writes in the forward to "Sailors and Sexual Identity" by Steven Zeeland -
"Over the past 150 years the dichotomizing of sexual preferences into heterosexual and homosexual has been the result of political efforts to win recognition and acceptance of homosexuality by its practitioners and of their efforts to develop electorates and(...) win protection under the law(...) where they cold live free of the (...) intolerance and rejection of those who were aware of them." The point is - this need for a separate "gay" identity has had a necessary political function, but at some point we need to move beyond it and accept individuals for who they are - individuals with a multiplicity of sexual preferences that cannot be easily categorized. Even "bisexual" is relatively meaningless. By creating a "gay" category to be set against a "straight" category, we are not only left with two artificial choices that do not describe what it is to be human, but have created the assumption that such polarization must remain long after acceptance of individual human freedom is the social norm. There are no "gay" people as a legal or biological entity, just as there are no "straight" people. "Being gay" has served as the questionable foundation of a loose social subculture which can provide mutual aid and opportunities to meet like minded people, and motivate people to react against oppression, but is also a very recent construct and a crude behavioral model that hopefully will soon lose its relevance once "human rights" are seen as absolute, and not a function of belonging to any particular group - whether such groups are "racial" (race being another myth that has no scientific basis), or sexual, or religious etc etc etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article can be summed up by....
Posted by: Libertine on Jan 26, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fear of us is the fear of an America in which every adult is free to find sexual satisfaction with the consenting adult of their choice in whatever manner they choose.

Exactly.

I'm not gay, but as a nonmonogamous heterosexual, I fully understand where the author is coming from.

Few nonmonogamous people will openly assert their preference for casual sexual encounters; to have a sex life that is both physically and emotionally nonmonogamous. The polyamorous assure the "monogamous majority" that they love each and every person they have sex with -- that they believe that sex belongs in "committed relationships" just like they do! Swingers, on the other hand, though they have extramarital sex, will often assert that they reserve their love for their legal spouse alone. And the outside sex they do get is always with their spouse present and it's usually in a structured environment. Other than their occasional "sexcapades" the day to day lives of swingers are no different than their monogamous neighbors.

While this is all well and good if this accurately reflects a person's true sexual proclivities, the assumption is still there that there is something shameful about a lifestyle based on casual sex that does not necessarily involve love or where monogamy is not somewhere part of the picture, either physically or emotionally.

This is paralleled in the gay community with the emphasis now being on gaining the right to enter into legal, monogamous marriages just like straights do. Indeed, some same-sex marriage advocates have taken great pains to distance themselves from those of us, straight gay,and bisexual, who prefer nonmonogamous lifestyles, publicly stating their disapproval of polyamory, swinging, "polygamy", and casual sex, with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch being foremost among those disapproving of nonmonogamous lifestyles. You will find few gay rights activists these days asserting the right to casual sex.

Again, there's nothing wrong with same sex couples wanting to enter into a legal, monogamous marriage if that's their choice and as long as legal marriage exists, it should be available to all.

But let's not kid ourselves by thinking that extending the right of legal, monogamous marriage to same sex couples is the ultimate goal to attain sexual freedom. That will only come when adults of all sexual orientations are free to enter into whatever form of sexual relationships they please with other consenting adults without fear of social or legal reprisals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lay off the crystal meth
Posted by: muzunguhowru on Jan 26, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure somewhere in this rambling diatribe there is supposed to be a point but if you want more than two people to get it you have to stop tweaking when writing for a deadline. As near as I can tell the point is "We are only about sex acts... and nothing else". Most human beings LGBT.. WXYZ...ramalama ding dong whatever.... don't need to define themselves by their sexuality alone never mind the range of sex acts they have committed. If thats being "assimilationist" so be it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isolate Homophobes, Don't Empower Them
Posted by: SholomB on Jan 26, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To focus on answering or changing public opponents--either to politically annihilate or even convert them--can easily strengthen them while weakening you. The game is to organize & maintain alliances that pass or overturn laws to protect yourself and isolate and contain enemies, not to waste your energies demanding authenticity, freedom, or even love in the public sphere. In modern society, not to mention history, these qualities are measured in moments, not institutions.
A case in point is the ferocious hostility engendered in some quarters by "Brokeback Mountain". Given its melancholy mildness, attacks on it by sex haters and religious fanatics made both the film & gay life seem more unexceptionably Blue-State. In fact, urban political alliances are built on mutual affirmations of commonality, along with aknowledgements & cautious explorations of difference; i.e., whatever else they may or not be, LGBTs are citizens and neighbors first. Always assuming we have political, economic, human rights & protections, why risk replacing civility with civic strife, to point out in the most antagonistic context uncomfortable differences among sexual, childrearing, or religious beliefs & practices? If these details do not remain private and literary concerns or issues addressed among allies, progressives may have trouble protecting them as rights and may also shatter the coaltions needed to improve public healthcare, education, & transportation & to insure that, unlike many New Deal arrangements, these changes democratically & inclusively serve all who need them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SEXUAL IDENTITY - Part 1
Posted by: Astroboy on Jan 26, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any deep exploration of the self will lead you into areas that will confound conventional beliefs about sexuality. You will discover an identity, a psychological and psychic identity, that is in your terms male and female, one in which those abilities of each sex are magnified, released and expressed. They may not be so released in normal life, but you will meet the greater dimensions of your own reality, and at least in the dream state catch a glimpse of the self that transcends a one-sex orientation.

Such an encounter with the psyche is often met by great artists or writers, or by mystics. This kind of realization is neccessary if you are ever to transcend the framework of seeming opposites in which your world is involved.

The overtly specific sexual orientation, then, refects a basic division in consciousness. It not only separates a man from his own intuitions and emotions to some extent, or a woman from her own intellect, but it effectively provides a civilization in which mind and heart, fact and revelation, appear completely divorced. To some degree each person is at war with the psyche, for all of an individual's human characteristics must be denied unless they fit in with those considered normal to the sexual identity.

To one degree or another in ordinary life, you end up with sexual caricatures in practical existance.

You do not understand what true womanhood or true manhood is. You are forced instead to concentrate upon a shallow kind of diversity. As a result, the reflection of sexual schism taints all of your activities, but most of all it limits your psychological reality.

Since you value sexual performance in the most limited terms, and use that largely as a focus of identity, then both your old and young suffer consequences that are not so much the result of age as of sexual prejudice. It is interesting to note that both the old and the young also find themselves outside of your organizational frameworks. The young are more freewheeling in their thoughts before they accept sexual roles, and the old are more freewheeling in theirs because they have discarded their sexual roles. I did not say that the old and young had no sexual expression - but that both groups did not identify their identities with their sexual roles. There are of course exceptions. If the man or the woman is taught that identity is a matter of sexual performance, however, and that that performance must cease at a certain age, then the sense of identity can also begin to disentegrate. If children feel that identity is dependent upon such performance, then they will begin to perform as quickly as possible. They will squeeze their identity into sexual clothes, and the society will suffer because the great creative thrusts of growing intellect and intuitions will be divided at puberty, precisely when they are needed.

Ideally, the adult male or female would rejoice in sexual expression and find an overall orientation, but would also bask in the greater psychological and psychic identity that experienced and expressed all of the great human capabilities of mind and heart, which splash over any artificial divisions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SEXUAL IDENTITY - Part II
Posted by: Astroboy on Jan 26, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the world of your present experience, sexual differences are less apparant as you reach old age. Some women display what you would think of as malle characteristics, growing hair about their faces, speaking with heavier voices, or becoming angular; while some men speak with lighter, gentler tones than ever before, and their faces grow smoother, and the contours of their bodies soften.

Before puberty there is the same seeming ambiguity. You stress the importance of sexual identification, for it seems to you that a young child must know that it will grow up to be a man or a woman, in the most precise of terms - toeing the line in the least particular.

The slightest deviation is looked upon with dismay, so that personal identity and worth are completely tied into identification with femaleness or maleness. Completely different characteristics, abilities, and performances are expected from those in each catagory. A male who does not feel himself fully male, therefore, does not trust his identity as a person. A woman doubtful of her complete femininity in the same manner does not trust the integrity of her personhood.

A lesbian or homosexual is on very shifting psychological ground, because the same interests and abilities that they feel most personally theirs are precisely those that mark them as sexual eccentrics.

These are simple enough examples, but the man who possesses interests considered feminine by your culture, who naturally wants to enter fields of interest considered womanly, experiences drastic conflicts between his sense of personhood and identity - and his sexuality as it is culturally defined. The same, of course, applies to women.

Because of your exaggerated focus, you therefore become reatiely blind to other aspects of "sexuality". First of all, sexuality per se does not neccessarily lead to intercourse. It can lead to acts that do not produce children. What you think of as lesbian or homosexual activity is quite natural sexual expression, biologically and psychologically. In more "ideal" environments such activity would flourish to some extent, particularly before and after prime reproductive years.

For those literal-minded readers, this does not mean that such activity would predominate at such times. It does mean that not all sexual activity is meant to end in childbirth - which is a biological impossibility, and would represent planetary catastrophe. So the species is blessed, if you will with many avenues for sexual expression. The strong focus that now predoninates does inhibit the formation of certain kinds of friendships that would not neccessarily at all result in sexual activity.

Lesbianism and homosexuality as they are currently experienced, also represent exaggerated versions of natural inclinations, even as your your experienced version of heterosexuality is exaggerated.

The Nature of the Psyche(It's Human Expression)
- a Seth Book, by Jane Roberts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SEXUAL IDENTITY - Part II Posted by: elyusium
» RE: SEXUAL IDENTITY - Part II Posted by: Astroboy
*Correction
Posted by: Astroboy on Jan 26, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of your exaggerated focus, you therefore become *relatively* blind to other aspects of...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re the link posted regarding the mathematician...
Posted by: emccready on Jan 26, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am posting this here for wider viewing as well:

I think it is best next time to just copy and paste the entire link...it usually wraps around and delivers the person to the site by clicking on it... when you do carriage returns it just makes it difficult to copy and paste the pieces...

I am appalled by what the mathematician said however people who are so one pointed in their view of the world (and often mathematicians worth their weight are one pointed and in many ways isolated from other realities) carry no weight with me.

I agree with the writer that it is probably sexual liberation that is at stake not just for gay people but for everyone. Everyone has some hidden thing which turns them on so it is difficult to define anyone and put one group in one box. Heteros who enjoy anal sex are also made to feel shame for their practice. Religious right wingers will continue to use the Bible and any other resources including their twisted version of reality and their own hidden frustrations to excoriate and blame others for enjoying their own version of sex. Instead of throwing guilt trips on people for enjoying a practice that is universally available (sex) no matter what your income or station in life, people would do well to explore their own desires and hopefully succeed in finding someone to share those private moments of mutual enjoyment. Sex is so varied in practice and so long as no one is harmed in the performance and it is a mutually enjoyed thing, people should just shut up and work on their own sex life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sympathy for Larry Craig
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 26, 2008 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've long held that it is pointless, futile, and not a little tawdry for gays and the other sexual minorities to curry the favor of straights by emulating them. In the assimilation-versus-queer debate, I come down fully, wholeheartedly on the side of Queers. But I do appreciate this writer's point, which might be characterized (with apologies to Rev. M. L. King) as "so long as one person is not free [of sexual opprobrium], no one is truly free."

The trouble with emulating straights is that gays can do everything but marry a person of the opposite sex and have offspring by or with that person, and once it's out that the person is gay, bi, lesbian, whatever, society as a whole -- supposedly about 90-95% straight -- takes umbrage. Look at Sen. Larry Craig. He's a poster boy for the fact that being outed amounts to automatic exclusion from many of the rights and pursuits of happiness taken for granted by the majority.

The only reason I support gay marriage is because it is not denied to hetero people, and I am not so convinced it shouldn't be. All of this family values claptrap is just so much smoke and mirrors obscuring some ugly truths, not the least of which is that divorce rates are still high (up to 50%). Not much of an advertisement for straight marriage, is it?

And let's face it, gay-lesbian-bi-transgendered (GLBT) people are different from their heterosexual brothers and sisters. I prefer the term, "queer" as opposed to "gay" because it reclaims an epithet of choice among straights in much the same way that African-American rap and hip-hop artists and stand-up comedians like Richard Pryor toss around the "N" word as an emblem of brotherhood, not as a rhetorical drubbing commonly employed by whites.

One has only to read David Brock's Blinded by the Right to see how, the more one tries to hide one's essence in order to "belong" and "fit in," the more the psyche and emotional stability of the closeted person are harmed. Brock took an awfully long time to figure out that had he been up front and honest with the crypto-fascist crowd he was hanging with (including Richard Melon Schaife and a whole slew of neocons) they would drop him like a proverbial hot potato.

Now, Brock's trying to play catch-up, using his Media Matters website to reveal instances of twisting and distorting, spinning and lying for political purposes -- the exact same thing he used to do when reporting for the far right media. He knew he was queer when he went to UC-Berkeley, but he kept in his closet and suffered the slings and arrows of constant homophobic taunting in the circles in which he moved. This is pathetic.

When I was in high school years ago I saw a TV movie about a tormented homosexual male growing up in the South (as I recall) and having, as his closest friend and confidant, his family's "Negro" domestic. When he finally confessed to her that he had feelings for men and was afraid he'd be ostracized, the wise old woman said: "Honey, they's four kinds of people out there: those who like you for what you are; those that like you for what you're not; those that dislike you for what you're not, and those that dislike you for what you are. That last bunch o' folks is the only ones you got to be worryin' about."

Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexual Identity
Posted by: Romantic Violence on Jan 26, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If it harms none then do as thy will"

A Wiccan's Creed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Race Not good Metaphor
Posted by: herbal on Jan 26, 2008 10:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author abuses all understanding of race relations.

Race is about genetics. Sex is about activity, not genetics. Descrimination due to race is not and never was comparable to sexual behavior. People of color, including white, cannot do anything to assimilate short of intermarrying for the benefit if the next generation.

Queers and peers discussion needs to begin with what practices the discussion is all about. Call it for what it is. Kinky or benign in the final analysis, we owe it to ourselves to discuss first, what being queer is all about.

This is simply not relevant to race realations, in spite of the southern bigot claims to rationalize their bigotry.

So, Clarence Patton, lets discuss the queers vs assimilationists first from the standpoint differences in behaviors involving anal sex, staph infection, AIDS, amyl nitrate, numbers of lifetime sexual partners (yes, obsessive/compulsive diagnoses), depression, suicide, fag hags, statistical analysis of alcoholism, blame of mothers, drug use, openly discuss gay merkin/smegma humor, limitation of life expectancy and even political party affiliation as independent variable. I'm interested in the secret life of that most famous closet case, J. Edgar Hoover and all those recently outed Republicans. Is sexual orientation really a legitimate realm of progressive politics? To continue to bait progressives with the domain of sexual politics, you preclude assimilation.

Then we can rationally discuss redefining gay behavior as normative behavior and social options, rather than dysfunctional and neurotic adaptation to unfortunately unavoidable circumstance?

Does not queer vs assimilationist politics pale as an issue compared to the genocidal wars that are being sponsored by gay and straight Republicans and Democrats, closeted and open? Can't we really concentrate, politically, on issues of life and death since we US citizens all share in the collective guilt of our corporatist genocide just as post-war Germans; for not intervening as supposed democracy in ending madness???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Race a fine metaphor Posted by: abbadon2007
Fighting for Civil & Human Rights
Posted by: abstractmachine on Jan 27, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is NOT assimilation it was not the purpose of the various civil rights movements in the last century and its not purpose of efforts to legalize gay marriage or allow gays in the military or to protect gays from other forms of discrimination. The purpose of these movements is to end CODIFIED DISCRIMINATION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm homosexual, but am over being "gay"
Posted by: sfdenizen on Jan 27, 2008 9:31 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having come out several years ago and having plunged myself into the gay cultures of big urban U.S. cities, I'm now at the point where being gay is not that important to me in the big scheme of things. Sure, I don't want to be discriminated against in jobs, housing, education, or in legal and financial privileges that others have, but I don't make a point of identifying myself by my sexual orientation. There are many more aspects of my individuality that resonate more deeply with me than my sexual attraction, such as my spiritual development, my career in healing disease, and my work in ending poverty, illiteracy, and war.

I find it ridiculous to single out one character trait that I diid not choose or do not control and make it the focus of my self-definition. "Gay Pride" seems as useless to me as "Height Pride". Neither is an accomplishment or meaningful in any deep way.

People who are homosexual should have the same rights as people who are celibate, who are short, who are left-handed, who can roll their tongues, etc. That is, we should all be treated as equal citizens and individuals regardless of the diversity of our outward traits. This whole "group identity" culture we have in this country is useless and ultimately harmful. We can categorize groups by whatever trivial random trait we want to. What matters is the individual.

So this whole argument about gay assimilation vs. queer rebellion strikes me as inane. I don't want someone defining how I should conduct my life based on his/her forcing me into some arbitrary category. By way of example, I happen to like coffee-flavored ice cream. Should I now unite with all coffee-flavored ice cream fans and demand group rights, ranting against that oppressive chocolate-flavored ice cream loving majority?

Methinks not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Sign of Maturity Posted by: herbal
Name Calling
Posted by: FoJ on Jan 28, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, the use of the term 'assimilationists' borders on hate speech - an inflammatory, degrading label used solely to isolate and insult those so labeled. It communicates nothing about the position(s) taken, the reasoning, the motives. It offers no information, no analysis, no honest critique; instead, it simply dismisses anything other than the author's own point of view with a degrading, and in this case, inherently fraudulent, label.

If there truly are any 'assimilationists' among GLBTQ people - they would be those GLBTQ people who promote ex-gay and reparative therapies - and even then, the label is less than completely accurate.

The author has simply taken to heart and applied the tactics of the very homophobes he pretends to reject - exchanging their demand for heterosexuality with his own demands about how others live their lives and prioritize their goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

circles within circles
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Jan 28, 2008 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the antebellum/slavery history of white male subjugation and rape of black women (and by extension the emasculation of black men)

Not to diminish the racial subjugation aspect of the actions described here, but this comment illustrates subjugation on more than one level. That violence against women could be understood (rightly, at least in large part) to be really "about" men really brings home the pervasiveness of misogyny at all levels of American culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article
Posted by: kelt65 on Jan 31, 2008 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a good summary of the differences within the "gay movement" these days.

As a gay man I completely identify with the "queer rather than gay" identity.

I'm not fighting for normalcy but rather for a FREE world, where people can freely love as they wish, without labels. This is the ultimate goal, and was the ultimate goal of the gay liberation movements of the sixties and seventies.

"Queer" also conveniently distances me from the consumerist homosexual stereotype, which I want NO part of.

In a world where torture, murder, war, are "normal"; where "liberty" is a code word for property rights - I'm GLAD and yes, PROUD to be "different"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ridiculous
Posted by: kelt65 on Jan 31, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, when the "chocolate loving minority" is told in schools and by their own families that they are perverse and need therapy, when they endure snickers and snide remarks at every turn, when they have a suicide rate that exceeds the majority, then you may some some point.
But the reality is, you don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deceptive Identity
Posted by: rjs on Jan 31, 2008 10:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all deceptive identity. There is no logical excuse to be proactive in a group that portrays freedom, or the rights of freedom, as any sexual preference or act. It's a modern day homosexual broadcasting frenzy that has nothing to do with anything. People are subject to discrimination by the words they use. To raise up a group over another is discrimination to another.

To proudly articulate your being by advertising your sexual preference in any flavor shows a lack of appreciation for what a humans makeup truly is.

--rjs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]