Seeing Red, or Why I Left Facebook (Baaaaaa)

See me, right there?  Hi.

So, in case you didn't see it on CNN or Huffington Post, I've left facebook.

If you couldn't give a hoot--an opinion to which you are most genuinely entitled, because after all, who am I to think anyone should care, it's not like it's a world event--you can stop reading now.  Just sayin'.   Don't be reading all of this and then leaving some comment like "Who cares?" (not that anyone will see it since I moderate comments...bwah ha ha....but still), even if "Who cares?" is the most frequently posted comment on most news sites.... and of course People magazine.  Really.  People read articles about the pregnancy weight of whichever one of the Kardashian sisters is pregnant right now (I have no idea), and then they take the time to leave a comment that says "Who cares?" Who cares?  Um....You.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

On the other hand, if you're interested (which I am, because, well, it's me) or curious (because you're that kind of person...I love me some curious people) or perhaps a wee bit jealous (which I know some of you are), read on.

So here's the deal.

I didn't leave facebook because it ate (or killed, depending on the generosity of my mood) my blog a couple of years back, although I've thought of that many times.

I didn't leave facebook because it's one huge addictive massive time suck that has negatively impacted much of  my work and my life. That's a really good reason, though.

I didn't leave facebook because I don't value community or staying in touch with my friends from kindergarten, summer camp, music festivals, or chorus.  Those are good things about facebook, and I'll miss them.  Although, come to think of it, you're getting warm.

It is possible that I may not have left facebook permanently.  While I'm away, I'm going to spend some good time working out at the bullshit gym, strengthening my bullshit deflecting muscles.  I'm gonna devote some portion of my day to working at the lab, testing out those new sprays that make facebook posts slide right off without leaving any powdery residue or unsightly stains.  I'm going to go to Use-Facebook-Infrequently-And-Don't-Care-About-Anything-You-Read Camp.  We'll see.

I understand that this is new, because, well, I just left, so I haven't thought this through so perfectly yet.  But my reasons are timely, and hell, this is my blog, so I'm gonna write about them.

The short version, for those of you who have read about as much as your attention span will tolerate, is: I left facebook over gay marriage.

I mean, that's completely inaccurate and incomplete and doesn't even resemble the truth, but I am aware that, if you're a good little soldier and you read this post all the way to the end, that's what some of you are going to come out saying.  It will be wrong, but that's all you will have gotten out of it.  So I'm saving you some time.  Okay.  Fine.  I left facebook over gay marriage.

Ding ding!  Tram Stop Number Two.  We will be stopped here for thirty seconds for those who wish to disembark at this point.

You see, I'm singl.....

I know how you think.  I was about to start a sentence with "I'm single, not partnered..." and I could hear your brains clicking and saying "aha!" and linking that sentence to that "I left facebook over gay marriage" thing.   See how that works?  Well, you're gonna think what you're gonna think.

I'm single.  Not partnered.  So I mostly have myself to talk to.   Yeah.  You might think it doesn't make a difference (especially from the privileged perspective of being partnered).  But it does.

I live in a town that I moved to solely so that there would be really good public schools for my daughter (an admittedly questionable elitist and capitalist choice that I still struggle with every day)--perhaps needless to say, I don't live in a hotbed of radical lesbian feminist politics.  Hmm.  Come to think of it, I don't think that there is such a thing as a hotbed of radical lesbian feminist politics anymore, but, hey, a girl can dream.  So I don't feel a lot of community where I live and spend a lot of my time. 

I'm a mom.  I'm the kind of mom that believes when you're a mom, that goes at the top of your list.  I get that not everyone feels that way.  I do.  So I spend a lot of my time with 13 year olds, cooking, packing lunch, and driving to events.  (This stretches my anti-assimilation muscles further than they can bear, all on its own.)

I'm a lesbian who came out into an enveloping community of strong, resistant, proud women.....and into a community of some loving, wonderful men, the great majority of whom were dead by the time I'd been out for six or seven years.

Facebook is perfect (or deadly) for people like me.  It's a little glimpse of community, a tease.  One of my friends said, a while back now, that facebook was like "sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name".  So...like a bar, I guess (which could explain my dissatisfaction right there)...but that's not how I took it.  I know that feeling.  We all know that feeling.  Hanging out with friends.  A place where people are glad when you pop in to visit.  Where you chat a bit and then you go back.  Nothin' wrong with that.   That's why I am was there.  Keep up with the latest, chat with friends, see what people are up to, take a break from being a single mom in an affluent (gag) suburb.  The way life used to be when LGBT people weren't so focused on being "just like you."

I assure you, this is not a procedural issue, or even a fit of cynicism.  It's about community.  The kicker leads back to that age old conversation, the one that was used to represent "us" (whoever "us" is) in the Supreme Court of the United States (did you hear it?) the one that is one of my least favorite conversations anywhere, anytime.   "We deserve rights because we can't help it", "who would choose this?", "no one in their right mind would choose to be gay".  Yeah.  The argument in our favor before the Supreme Court included the sentence:  "[it became unconstitutional] when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control."  Great.  Now it's enshrined in the federal record.

Poor us, we couldn't change this if we wanted to.

Bullshit.  There are plenty of us out there who could change it.  And have.   Some of us (especially women, whose stories are buried under the "legitimate" research that focuses exclusively on gay men)  did choose it, and aren't sorry, and aren't victims of this "horrible life where everyone hates us".   I'm one of those.  And WHY did I choose it?  Not because of the sex.  Not because I think women are "hot" (I don't care for, or even understand that concept, no matter who it applies to).  Because the women's community, which has long been, at least in part, a euphemism for the lesbian community, at least in the place that I came out, was a wonderful, wonderful place.  Warm.  Welcoming.  Alternative.  Accepting.  Diverse.  Contrary.  Loud.  Activist.  Feminist.  Radical.   A positive, wonderful, political choice.

So.  This week.

The massive proliferation of red HRC (no, I'm not linking to them) logos made it clear to me, in a more final, permanent, way, that that community is dead, at least in my pretty large circle.  I've kind of known it for awhile.  But I have been practicing my best denial skills, and it's been working pretty well.  Until this.

I have always held, deep in my soul, that if I were ever to find myself in this sort of crowd, I would leave:

 I'm Jewish.  When a family member dies, we cover our mirrors.  It symbolizes a withdrawal from society's gaze, a recognition that mourning is lonely and silent.

And so I left.

Ironically, a few weeks ago, a facebook friend posted a meme that said, aptly: "The only thing worse than being alone is being with people who make you feel alone."   Touché.

So now you probably want the brief takeaway, because that's how people are these days (you see?  I'm catching on).  I told you already.  You can say "Robin left facebook because of gay marriage."

Oh.  You want the REAL takeaway?

Robin left facebook because she felt as if she found herself in a massive community of people who, almost without exception, have no qualms about playing right into the marketing scheme of a big, wealthy, corporation, and then defending it as benign.   Because I found myself nearly swept along in a nationalistic, flag-waving march for assimilation.  Because, in an almost flawless enactment of quasi-Orwellian groupthink, a voice of dissent is like screaming into a chasm--and frankly, I have enough of that in my life already without inviting it into my living space through a brightly lit screen.

Lighten up, Robin.  It was great.  It's a history making event.  People were supporting us, everywhere.  I loved seeing that sea of red.  It meant so many people were with us.  It's not a reason to leave.  It's just a symbol for marriage equality, and we were just saying we're in favor of it.  You're making too big a deal of it. I don't understand why you wouldn't be excited about gay people getting equal rights.

I am excited about gay people getting equal rights.  I'm excited about all people getting equal rights, leaving none behind.   Ya know, with the emphasis on the none.

And it's not a "symbol of marriage".  It's a logo.  Like this:

Or this:

 

Or this:

(Just in case you don't know what that last logo is (I know you know the first two), it's the logo of the ACLU.  You know.  The people who argued the case in our favor before the Supreme Court.  You know.  An organization that is actually related to the cases currently before the highest court in the land.   An organization that doesn't focus its time and money on slick marketing campaigns.)

The equal sign, red or not, is a logo, created in 1995 by Stone Yamashita design firm.  A logo of a $50 million dollar business, that overpays its executives and which many people within the LGBTQ community (especially those ambivalent about assimilation) do not regard as their advocate of choice.

So, you still want the "blurb".

I am a lesbian. But before that, I am a woman and a feminist.  And before that, I am a person who believes in the inherent danger of groupthink, especially in the current culture of corporate capitalism run amok.  And before THAT, I'm one of those moms who did not let her kid wear shirts with promiment "GAP" or other logos on them...I long ago joined the surprisingly large league of mothers who have told their children (as part of their education), "If they want us to advertise for them, they can pay us."

That'll do.

Hot tip:  I already mentioned that I moderate comments.  I don't do that because I like some of you and not others (though that might be true).  I do it because there is a HUGE amount of spam that floods into the comments sections of blogs, and it's a LOT to keep up with.  So it's easier to moderate.  That being said, please don't send me comments that tell me that I need to learn not to take this stuff so personally.  I've been listening to that shit my whole life.   I am who I am, and I like that I'm principled and analytical, and I have people in my life who like that I'm that way, too.  Actually, say it if you must, but be aware that I can respond to comments, and I will then feel free to tell you what you need to learn.  Deal?

P.S.  Oh.  Even though I'm not seeing them anymore, much gratitude to my few friends who changed their facebook profile pictures to GLAD, or Lambda Legal, or the ACLU. Even one or two different ones (not including knockoffs of the HRC logo) helped.  And even more gratitude to people who changed their profile photos to pictures of themselves at their weddings or commitment ceremonies, or just together with their families of choice.  And even more to those who just left it all alone, so we could all see your face and remember who we're doing all of this for.

Click Your Heels Together Three Times

 

Look at that.  I was just about to say "Well, now that the hubbub over the pope has settled down a bit..."  So silly.

So this has been an interesting couple of days.  You know it's been an over the top media event when I've been watching it, and I am perhaps one of the least interested people you could meet.  For me, watching it is more akin to the way in which some people settle down in front of the TV or computer to watch endless hours of repetitive coverage about a school shooting, or a terrorist attack, more akin to the highway rubbernecking that seems almost instinctual. You know, wondering how these kind of things happen, how we allow them to happen, and what it is in human nature that makes people act in strange and irrational ways.

But what I've really been thinking about is the red shoes.  

You know the ones.

 

 

And I'm wondering (a lot) if this new guy, this Francis guy (I hear that's a good name for him to have picked) is going to wear the red shoes.  Well, not THE red shoes.  Not the same ones that his predecessor wore (see above), which I hear were made by Prada (ooh la la).  Any red shoes.  Becuase this whole red shoes thing is really interesting to me.

For years now, whenever given an opening, I have been an evangelist for red shoes.  Not religious red shoes (if there is such a thing).  Just red shoes.  Ask anyone I know.  At some point, I probably have asked them if they own a pair of red shoes (and the cool, and somewhat strange, thing is that most people just nod, like they know that rule, and of COURSE they have a pair of red shoes).  I have definitely said that it is my belief that everyone should own a pair of red shoes (and by everyone, I mean women...I admit that I have never thought about whether men should own a pair of red shoes, and I can't say I'm inclined to start now).  I don't really know why.  It's just a thing.  I think it's important. Red shoes put a spring in your step.  They stand out, they ensure that you are not invisible.  They make people smile...or scowl.  Either one is good.  Red shoes say that you're not afraid.  Everyone (see definition above) should own (and wear) a pair of red shoes. 

Which, being who I am, has got me thinking.  I know.  Unusual.

What is the deal with red shoes?  How is it that I am such a maverick, spreading the good word about red shoes long before they became a topic of papal discussion?  I mean, it's not the first time I've been ahead of the curve, but still.

So back to this Pope for a minute.  Did you hear about how he wouldn't ride in the car, but took the bus?  Did you hear how he took off the showiest vestments (or whatever they're called, there are so many words that I don't know) very quickly, as soon as he could?  Did you hear about how he refused the fancy white chair in the Sistine Chapel, and just sat with the other cardinals?  I think these things are pretty decent.

And yes, I know he's anti-abortion.  I know he said that gay people adopting is discrimination against children and "child abuse".  I know that he said gay marriage is evil.  I've gotten all the emails from every LGBT organization, I've seen the posts on facebook.  Get real.  He's the POPE.  He's the head of the Catholic church.  Those things are pretty much a given.  Did someone (even one person...yeah, in the whole world) imagine that the cardinals would vote in a person who thinks all of those things are a-ok?  Give me a break.  Yeah.  I don't like those things about him.  Or the church.  Or the followers.  Maybe it's just that I'm a person who is able to hold two conflicting things in mind at one time.  Yeah.  He's a conservative Catholic whose social and moral positions are far different from mine.   Yeah, he may have some horrible political history in Argentina (and the other popes didn't have horrible political histories?).  I don't know about you, but it's not like I've been sitting around wondering when the Pope and I are going to agree and have coffee or something.  

Still, he appears to have some degree of humility, which is kinda unusual for a Pope, and at least is somewhat in line with the whole religion thing, certainly more than gold chalices and a $350K Mercedes.  Humility about something.  Anything.  That seems like a pretty good thing.  That's all.  And that's why I bet he's not gonna wear red shoes.

The real question remains:  What is the deal with red shoes?  Dorothy.  Hans Christian Anderson.  The Pope.  Me.  

See what I mean?

I'm not alone.  Apparently, Elaine Webster, a sociologist from New Zealand, has done extensive research on why women wear red shoes (another fine use of research).  She reports that "some men may become befuddled and even confused [at the sight of women wearing red shoes]" What power--I'm thinking that's a good reason for women to wear red shoes right there.  There are guides on how to wear red shoes.  There's a red shoe movement.  There's a history of red shoes.

The best I can tell, they're about power.  And about being noticed.  And about magic, and desire, and wishes.  And about shoes that won't come off your feet or that go on dancing even after your feet are cut off.  Ew.

I don't think he's gonna wear the red shoes.

I still think you should, though.

We're Just Like You

"Lesbians aren't edgy." (I actually heard "lesbians aren't edgy anymore", but that isn't what was said.)

It was said in a moment of jest, a friendly kidding around between friends.   It wasn't meant to be a big deal, nor particularly taken as such.  But several hours later, I am realizing that it was one of the saddest things I've heard in a while.

I mean, who knew?  Here I was thinking that while we aren't exactly on the fringe of the fringe, we're still out there in the fringey little things somewhere.  Apparently not.  That must have been "before". 

Because...well, because I'm me, I've been stewing.  What does it mean?

I'm pretty close to an answer, at least one that feels satisfying.  I'm thinking what it means is that we're assimilated.  So now I just want to scream. 

I am not such a fan of assimilation.  That's an understatement. There is so much lost.  I'm more like "I'll take the old days minus the fear and violence".  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the good old days of no equal rights and oppression.  This is where it get tricky.   Probably the simplest way to explain my position is that I believe a social transformation was (and is) critical.   Just not this one.

As you may or may not know, I have spent the last six months, and most intensively the last month, planning, coordinating, fundraising, rehearsing, singing about and performing music in celebration of the fifth anniversary of equal marriage in Massachusetts.  Today, I walked nearly an entire parade route singing "Going to the Chapel" amidst enthusiastic applause.  It's been a wild ride (not to mention unbelievable) and one that required me to stand up in front of people and ask them to help us celebrate this historical event.  It's also put me in the unlikely position of cheerleader as, while we were rehearsing, four states joined Massachusetts, and the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 in California was released. So it was a little odd to walk around all of that time with the voice of one of my friends in my head, asking me "So, why are you against same-sex marriage?".

No, I straightened her out.  I'm not against same-sex marriage.  I think it's a no-brainer.  I think it's just another one of the equal rights that gay and lesbian people should have as a matter of course.  But then again, I thought the equal rights amendment was a no-brainer too, so you probably shouldn't pay any attention to me. 

Imagine--Equal rights for women guaranteed under the constitution.  Just in case you weren't paying attention, it failed.  And just in case you still weren't paying attention, it has been reintroduced every year.  Still nothing.  And in the event that you STILL weren't paying attention, yes, women's rights and gay and lesbian rights are, in fact, related (since the opposition to both has a whole lot to do with misogyny).  I don't know.  Call me crazy.  I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, full equal rights for half of the country's population might be a good place to start.

Yeah, I'm an old time feminist.  Oh, yeah.  I know.  You're a feminist, too.  Here's a tip.  The feminism of today is unrecognizable by the standards of 70's and even 80's feminism--the stuff I cut  my teeth on.  It's really a whole different animal.

Aha.  Maybe this is the problem.  See, I am the President and a singing member of a women's chorus that was founded upon feminist principles of community, inclusivity, activism, and education. Maybe that's where I got the idea that we were about feminism.  But I forgot to check which version we were using (I'm old, I sometimes don't think of things like that). And I forgot to check whether we actually talk amongst ourselves about exactly what that means, being "founded on feminist principles".  No wonder I so often feel confused.

But back to same-sex marriage. As I said, I think it's a no-brainer.  I'm not against it. On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly say I'm in favor of it either.  I mean, I am in favor of it because I think equal rights should be a given, and equal rights are equal rights.  But I'm not after what it means, how it gets played out, what it "turns us into" (and if you don't believe me on that one, you must not have enough gay or lesbian friends).  And I am most certainly not in favor of the rhetoric it has inspired.  The rhetoric of "legitimacy", of "normalcy", of "we are just like straight people!".  Yick.  It makes my skin crawl  (which I do recognize just might lead someone to conclude that I am "against" it, I do get that).

Listen up.  About the legitimacy thing.  We don't need to be "legitimized" by anyone.  Let's put that concept in the same trash heap as the archaic and insulting (and gratefully, nearly obsolete) concept of "illegitimate" children.  That term has, for the most part, died a blessed death, because, of course, every child is legitimate.  Every one of our relationships is legitimate too, with or without state sanction.  So let's just get rid of that one.  We've insulted ourselves for too long already.

And then there's the "normal" thing.   I'm with Jodie Foster here (not that there's anything wrong with that).  She apparently is credited with saying "normal is not something to aspire to.  It's something to get away from."  Enough said.  Amen, sister.

So we're left with the "We're just like you" argument.  Hand me one of those bowls over there, wouldja?  I think I'm gonna puke.

This is why people think I'm against same-sex marriage.  Because I not only do not seek to be "just like them", but I don't want to be a part of a community that holds that as an aspiration, or worse yet, says it out loud (and proud).  It's probably that whole Groucho Marx thing, not wanting to be a member of any club that would have me as a member.  Be just like them?  Ew.

No offense to my heterosexual friends and readers out there.  Really. This is not a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater (what a horrible turn of phrase) kind of thing. No, I don't think there's anything wrong with your lives (I don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay).  Like anything else, it's not about individuals.  It's about a generalization.  My guess is that pretty much any of my straight friends (yes, I do have them) would agree that, as a group, heterosexual marriages, not to mention dating rituals, are not exactly something to emulate or envy.  That's what I'm saying.

See, here's the thing.  I'm not one of those who "knew" when I was five. Or ten.  Or twenty.  I know they exist, I don't doubt their legitimacy (there's that word again), but it's not my story.  I have always hated the nature/nurture debate regarding the "why", most vehemently the "why would anyone choose this?" (or its more fervent cousin "no one would make this choice!").  Just for the record, I'm quite clear I chose it.  I feel no shame in that.  Not in the least.

I chose it because I love the company of women.  I love living and working and laughing and being in a community of women.  I love the energy and power of women.  I love the electricity that flows between women.  I love the connections between women.  And perhaps more than anything, I love and believe deeply in the tenets of the feminism of the late 70's and early 80's (when I came out).  And believe it or not, at that time, for some women, becoming a lesbian was one among many possible manifestations or outgrowths of adherence to that philosophy (which had as its core a rejection of patriarchy, by the way, a seemingly novel concept in today's world).  For some, it was almost a natural evolution, a logical conclusion.  I am one of those.  

(Whoa.  This is like a whole 'nother coming out.  I don't think I've ever said these things before, at least not "publicly".) 

Anyway, I'm quite certain that my chorus sister who informed me today that "lesbians 

aren't edgy" didn't intend to produce this level of introspection, bordering on identity crisis.  Poor woman.

Here's the deal.

If I had wanted to be like them, I would have been like them.  I didn't.  I'm not.

If I had wanted my life to be just like everyone else's,  I would have made some really different choices.  I never have wanted that.  I don't want that now.

It's a hell of a trade-off for equal rights.  It is politically intruiging, since it seems likely that the acquisition of equal rights is tied into a tacit agreement to be more "mainstream", more assimilated, less "in your face", less counterculture, less...well...less "gay".  

You know, less edgy.  

Revolution

My desires are simple.

The basic stuff. Food, water, clothing.

If I'm gonna get all ideal here, which I am, I'd also say that I want to live in a calm beautiful space where children can spend every free moment in the road and fields and everywhere outside and in one anothers' houses which they can easily do because there are children everywhere.

I want my home to be a place where friends come to hang out, because it's comfortable, just the right degree of messy so they aren't worried about glasses leaving water rings or where they feel like they could leave a bookmark in a book and come back and keep reading another day.

I want artists' and childrens' voices to be more prominent in our culture.

Oh. And I want the assumption of heterosexuality and traditional nuclear family structure to be erased--that's right, erased--from our culture. Heck, while I'm at it, let's just make it the whole world.

That's all. Really.

I want for every child, everywhere, to know that there are different kinds of families, and for there to be no confusion or emotional valence about any given structure over another.

I want, when a child says to his or her friends, "I have two moms", for it to be received as if they say "I went to the movies this weekend". You know, something pretty much anyone (in American culture, at least) can relate to, and to which they are likely to respond with a gently interested "Oh. What'd you see?", or something similarly innocuous.

I want an end to all angst felt by young people about whether their parents and friends will approve of their romantic interest in a person of the same sex, the opposite sex, a different socioeconomic status, a different race. I want it to be a non-issue.

I want an end to the use of the term"real parent(s)". In any form. For any reason.

I want there to be no "normal". I want people to screw up their faces, perplexed. "What is this word...."normal"? I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about". No expected way of being, leaving anything outside of that way aberrant.

I want there to be no more dispute about subjective truth. Which I guess involves wanting a radical transformation in those people who stridently believe that relative truth is nonsense and the systems that support them or who teach them that crap.

I want straight people and the children of straight people to have to come out. It's okay, it won't be hard after the end of assumption.

The End of Assumption. It's the New Apocalypse.

You heard it here first.

Outrage

I don't usually do this, post something on this blog solely to get it out there, to do everything within my power to get it into circulation. But this has to be seen. By everyone. A big thank you to my friend Nicole, who posted it on Facebook today. I might have missed it...




The film is not released yet--it is opening at the Tribeca Film Festival later this month. But when it is released, we all need to go see it. We need to go see it not only to educate ourselves and to equip us to be informed advocates, but to support the brave filmmaker who has taken this on and who will surely pay for his efforts.

Move over, Roger Moore.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention

In this day and age, in 2009, in the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage, adults are still reluctant to talk about gay kids? It is taking every ounce of energy that I have to write about it rather than storm out my door and start shouting "Shame! Shame!" at random reporters, who honestly should know better.

I mean, I know that I wrote that post about choice, but in it, I even said that some people don't choose, some people feel strongly that they were "born that way". Of those who do, most that I have known feel that they knew when they were children, often before puberty, but if not, then certainly at the advent of puberty (that charming period of life when sexual attraction, and thus orientation, starts to flower and, in a cruel twist of fate, the period of life when children are most ruthless to one another).


I'm sure you know of the tragic suicides of two young boys in the past week, both connected to their being taunted and perceived as "gay". In all of the articles, even in the gay press, they point out that the 11 year old (!!) from Springfield, MA "did not identify as gay", though he was clearly teased for "acting gay" and "dressing gay". These attacks are being chalked up to "bullying" (which they obviously were) and much discussion has ensued about the use of anti-gay epithets as all-purpose ammunition for use against anyone who somehow stands out.

I don't think it's enough. I think there is still phenomenal self-censorship (albeit out of respect to the boys' families, a good reason if there ever was one, though why is it is more "respectful" to omit discussions of sexual orientation is a problem in itself). And way more than enough internalized homophobia (not to mention the good old garden variety) to go around.

I have now read countless articles about the deaths of these boys. Most of the mainstream press articles do not discuss at any length the anti-gay nature of the taunting. They briefly mention it, and then quickly move on to a discussion of how terrible bullying is (they've got no argument from me on that last point).

I've been reading about these cases for more than a week now, and of course have found the situation deeply disturbing. We should all be deeply concerned when young children are killing themselves as a result of being teased, taunted, and bullied. Like one of my favorite bumper stickers says: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention".

Few of the articles talk about the rates of suicide for gay youth. Yes, I know that young Carl Walker-Hoover did not "identify as gay" (which I found out only from the gay press), but so what? I do not presume to speak for this now lost child, nor his family, but I thoroughly reject the notion that the fact that he did not identify as such means this case is closed, and now we can just talk about bullying in general, and not about the way that children who do not tow the line close enough to the stereotypical gender norm are at risk? What exactly did they mean that he "acted gay"? He was clearly bold enough to be himself, and yet he obviously stood out in some fashion. This is not about random bullying, which is bad enough in itself. This is about the intolerance of gender variance, and our culture's lightning-fast leap to categorize it into "normal" and "deviant" categories. And it's also about homophobia. No, not on the kids' parts, though that's true, too.
On all of our parts.

Why are we so quick to point out that "he didn't identify as gay"? Why does that matter? What if he was gay? Would that be bad? What if he wasn't, and then came to realize differently at some point later in life, as happens for so many? What if he was, but had not yet gotten to an age or a stage in puberty when he was particularly aware of his own orientation or attraction? For so many, being gay as a child is simply about feeling "different", nothing more. Or what if he wasn't gay, but he was accepting of those who were? And most disturbing of all, what if he, in fact, wasn't gay and never would be, but just exhibited some behaviors that could be associated with "being gay" in a young boy...like being kind, for example?

And at the risk of being overly politically correct (and maybe even seeming a little heartless, which I assure you I am not), are we being too quick to lay his suicide solely at his tormentors' feet? What if they were right? Did he feel safe to share that at home? In his community? Did he have role models who were gay, adults to stand up for him and tell him that he was a wonderful person, a child of God, a kind soul, whether or not he was gay?

Yes, bullying is terrible and should never be allowed. And yes, as we know from Columbine and elsewhere, alienation and taunting can wreak havoc in a young person's life. I was bullied as a child, as were many people I know, and I still carry the scars 41 years later--and my treatment was nothing like this boy experienced. Anyone who experienced it can tell you. It's horrendous.

But this case is not just about bullying, and we're letting it be just that. It's about homophobia, even if this child was not gay. It's about how we let anti-gay slurs pass when we interrupt racial ones. It's about one of the "last acceptable prejudices". It's about our acceptance of "boys will be boys". It's about our intolerance for even the slightest amount of gender-role variance. It's about our failure to rein in children who have somehow missed the lesson of tolerance and decent behavior. It's about our rush to reassure ourselves that he wasn't gay, he was just being mercilessly taunted. Maybe.

One of these cases was in Massachusetts. One of the bluest states in the Union. About to celebrate the fifth anniversary of equal marriage. Home to an African-American governor whose daughter is lesbian and who embraces the gay and lesbian community. One month away from a huge GLBT pride celebration, embraced by the larger community. A state filled with resources for gay and lesbian youth, including programs in schools and organizations dedicated to those populations (not all states have that, by any stretch of the imagination). And in this state, a child killed himself for being called gay.

How could we have let that happen? Are we so busy living our own now-legally protected lives to remember that the hatred is still rampant? Have we forgotten the children?

You may be wondering what set this all off. I mean, I knew about these stories before today, as you likely did as well. Well, I'm gonna tell you.

This morning, I was doing a little snooping around online. In particular, I was looking at the official "blogs" of the Boston Globe, to see who was writing about children and parenting (since that's what I do professionally), and what they were saying. And I came across this question and answer. The columnist is a well respected speaker on child and family and winner of an American Psychological Association Print Excellence award for her writing.

Now, I don't know the family that wrote to her, under the pseudonym of SadBoyDad (though that name has already got me by the throat). And I don't know the particulars of their son's distress, which is clearly notable. I only know that he is described as a 9-year-old who is "creative and introspective", hardly traits that are highly prized in boys of that age group (my daughter is 9, and I can tell you that that middle school "pressure" in relation to gender norms has definitely already begun). And he is talking about life not being "worth it". His caring parents are asking for support in their inclination to get him professional help. And what does the answer say?

Kids talk like this. He might not mean what we think he means. Yes, there is a way to talk with him about getting some help (that one wasn't bad). A suggestion to talk with the boy's pediatrician (that's another post altogether, but suffice it to say that most pediatricians are not sufficiently trained in psychosocial issues). And a brief mention of how the parents' concern could have been exacerbated by the suicides of the two children mentioned above, all of this under the heading of who these cases have caused "hypervigilance" in parents. Maybe. All of it. Maybe.

Not a single word about the suicides being related to suspicions of being gay. No attentiveness to the fact that the parent has identified this child by what some might call "code words".
Not a question about whether the child might have exprienced any taunting, or even a suggestion for how to gently explore that with him in a nonjudgmental way.

I know. It's an online column. It's not a place for psychotherapy. But this was an opportunity. And from my perspective, it was an opportunity missed, especially in the wake of recent events.

I am not one to fold to stereotype, but it cannot be denied there are code words at work here. We in the gay and lesbian community know them. Apparently other people don't. Time for a lesson. When parents (or friends or teachers) express concern about a "sensitive, creative" boy or a girl who doesn't seem to want to do "girl things" (which at the moment is discussing High School Musical ad nauseum) with the other girls, it's time to look, even if gently and subtly and sneakily for how those people might respond if (and I mean "if"--this is about correlation, not causality) that boy or girl should turn out to be gay. Time to explore--tentatively and with respect--whether the parent's concern is not as much about protecting their son as it is anxiety over whether he might be gay (again, it may not be, just worthy of an exploration). Time to examine what programs are in place in the community where children might find like-minded peers, for a respite from the conformist mentality of school, if for nothing else. Time to subtly invite them over for a group picnic in the summer, one to which you've invited a family with one or more gay or lesbian members. Time to stop pretending this stuff doesn't exist until we all get to "tsk" about it when another child hangs himself.

Until we are attentive to these things, not only as schools, but as parents and as larger communities, these sorts of tragic events will continue to happen. And we will have not done enough to stop them.

Even in Massachusetts.

Anti-"Choice"

Hmm. And again, I say: Hmm.

In February, two bills were debated in Utah. They didn't even get out of committee, and are now "dead". One was to allow gay and unmarried couples (yes, straight people) to adopt ,and one was to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment. The opponents of both of these used "choice" as their sole argument (thanks to Joe for these):

"...those who choose alternative lifestyles suffer the consequences..." (Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem)

"What we're talking about is choice -- someone's sexual choice," she told a House panel. "Why would we put into law someone's sexual choice? … This is not the right thing to do." (Gayle Ruzicka, Eagle Forum President)

Clearly, it worked.

The Family Research Council (aka "The Axis of Evil") is certainly clear about it. Their handy brochure, "Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right" will fill you right in, 'splain it all to you so you understand clearly that being gay is a choice (or possibly you will understand clearly that the agenda of the RRR is to make that case, which is kinda different, don't you think?). Whatever you understand, people believe them.

And so do I.

Now, now, now....put away the pitchforks.

It has long been the stance of the GLBT community that being gay or lesbian is not a choice, but an inborn characteristic, as evidenced by the chorus of "Why would anyone choose THIS?. Way to feel proud, guys.

Yeah, some in GLBT groups are now saying, "Oh, we aren't using that argument [what I call the "poor-us-we-can't-help-it-so-please-give-us-equal-rights" argument] anymore." When you google the subject, you find lots of people saying "what does it matter if it's a choice or not?" (yay, I've been saying that for years, I knew they'd come around). But you also find this. HRC, the largest and most visible LGBT political organization in the U.S., continues to fight the good fight on the nearly abandoned front of "It's Not A Choice!!" (a few examples here , here and here) along with their pals at the APA and the AMA (who apparently have to choose between inborn or illness, kind of a black and white world view, no?).

Not to mention the hubbub about recent statements by Miss California (the symbol of all that is good and fair), who I don't think really did anything that wrong (yes, I know I'm digging myself in deeper every second)--she just stated her opinion. Why do we care what she thinks anyway?

I don't get why our own community, people who support us, would do that. At all. What's the matter with choice? Sure, it means facing persecution, but so does conversion to Judaism, and nobody says that people are crazy to do that. Why wouldn't people choose it, if there's nothing wrong with it? Are they saying that those who DO choose are not "real" gay or lesbian people? Seems to me the only reason to argue that it's not a choice is to say that we can't help it (with the obvious implication that if we could, we would). I don't know. That's not what pride (of any kind) or self-acceptance is about, in my opinion. On that note, check this out. Yikes.

[If you're reading, and inclined to leave a comment that says "Well, I didn't choose it!", you've got no argument from me. Some of us did. Some of us didn't. All I'm saying is that it's got zip to do with your (or my) right to equality.]

Many's the time I've wondered why HRC and other groups, not to mention individuals, so often fall back on this "not a choice" line. Maybe it's simply a reactive response to the right wing tactic of calling it a choice--but isn't that letting them define the conversation? Not for me, thanks. Maybe it's because the men who run the organization feel that they didn't choose it--but isn't that a little egocentric?

Or....or....(wait, I'm on to something)...is it because we (or some segment of "we") actually believe that immutable characteristics are the only rational justification for being given full protection under the law?

In the spirit of that old Jewish joke about the guy who didn't get a spoon for his soup....

AHA! And again, I say: AHA! (I know. I already used that. I like it.)

Today, the results of a huge new study were released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. You can read about it here -- or for you stats geeks who want to run the data yourself--been there done that-- the study itself is here. (Just for a moment, we're going to slide right over the fact that the charts presented on CNN only refer to Christian denominations- it's my birthday and I'm feeling generous today.)

The gist of the thing is that half of Americans have changed religion in the course of their lifetime.

So. Religion is a choice (like we didn't already know that). Hmm.

And its practitioners are protected by law. Hmm.

And no one is pointing that out. Hmm.

And it's tax-exempt. Hey!

We've argued the "we can't help it" line for too long. I don't care what APA, AMA, HRC, FRC, and all them other three letter organizations say. We have argued it because immutability is one of the requirements for being a protected class.

I'm here to say that I'm picking another requirement (there are two others, you know). Mine is not less, it's not more. It's equal. (Equal. Hey, what a concept).

If something is not immutable, it either needs to be innocuous or protected directly by the Constitution. Let's see. Eeny-meeny-miney-mo. Either one of those works for me.

Let's just stop staying we can't help it, okay?

Life in a Bubble

I admit it. I'm naive. I really thought it was a dying breed. I still hope so, for whatever that's worth. I mean, I've never been that media-savvy. I'm not really one to critique news anchors, with all their eccentricities. But I didn't know--I really didn't know--that there were still people in high profile positions in the news industry who behaved like this.

I'm talking about Jeff Rossen, of NBC News in New York City (no, we're not talking about the local anchor in a farming town of 2,000 in the middle of the bible belt, not that there's anything wrong with that), and more notably, of the Today Show. Now, lest you think this has been a long-brewing rant, let me assure you that I've never heard of this guy before today, when he said something on the Today show that went way past what I don't get, straight into what-I-thought-had-quietly-passed-from-this-earth.

Maybe I've been living in a bubble. I'm pretty sure I have. I mean, I live in the first state in the U.S. where same-sex marriage was legalized, and I'm originally from the other coast--the part of the other coast where they went ahead and conducted same sex marriages whether they're legal or not. I live in a school district and work for a company where discrimination based on sexual orientation is not allowed. I've been thinkin' we're gettin' somewhere. I mean...not to be too coast-centric, but...IOWA? The ball is rolling, methinks. But you know what else methinks?

We've reached a point in our cultural evolution in which it just would not happen that a newscaster would use the word "faggot" on the air. It would simply not be allowed. There would be an outcry, followed by an apology, and likely a resignation. But the subtle--and not so subtle--cues remain. And it's a good thing, because it reminds us that ignorance remains. We've still got plenty of work to do, so don't put away your rainbow flag just yet.

Today's example? It was just unbelievable.

I'm sure you have heard the story of the "craigslist" murderer. It's playing out right here in our fair city of Boston, and it's got all of the appropriately lurid elements that keep people glued to their televisions. My primary reaction to this case is that I wish they would stop calling it that, and I hope it doesn't hurt craigslist, because I think craigslist is great, and not only because I found my furniture, current home, some fantabulous possessions, and former babysitters and jobs there. I just think it's a little glimmer of what community is supposed to be in a sea of self-absorbed people who get away with talking to themselves as they walk down the sidewalk simply because they have a little bullet shaped device in their ears (me, I don't buy it).

So today, as you may know, shocker of all shockers, the news reports that this man, Phil Markoff (in case you don't know, he is accused of killing one woman and assaulting two others, after contacting them on craigslist, where they were advertising "massage" and "escort" services) was also contacting men for sexual liaisons via craigslist. [insert gasp here if absolutely necessary]. It's a scandal because, well, it's murder. But it's MORE of a scandal because he's blond, tall, stereotypically good looking, engaged, and a graduate student. You know as well as I do that people like that don't do bad things. It's the other people who do bad things! Come on!

Well, anyhow, this story was reported on the Today Show today, anchored by our very own Mr. Rossen. You can watch the segment here, if you'd like. I don't have the stomach to embed it here. It's a big news story, I get that. But I'd like to call your attention to the following section of dialogue, between Mr. Rossen and a man that claims to have been solicited by Mr. Markoff.

Rossen: "This will be very difficult for his fiancee to hear."

Man: "It would be tough for anyone to hear, to hear that your fiance is saying that he's single and looking for sex online anonymously--"

Rossen: "With MEN!"

Man: "With men, with men dressing as women......" (the rest doesn't matter)

Yeah. I bet that will be the toughest thing yet. Never mind that her intended is accused of murder and assault. He was having sex with MEN! Give me an effin' break.

Don't get me wrong. His fiancee has all my sympathy. All of it. She must be in terrible shock, wondering if this is all true, destroyed by the rapidly growing body of evidence, questioning who she thought she was engaged to, overwhelmed at the prospect of an envisioned future destroyed, maybe even fearful of the vulnerability she exposed to this man she was about to marry. She has every right to feel absolutely anything that she feels. What a terrible experience for her. But to suggest that finding out that there were men involved as sexual partners is among the most disastrous news just seems ludicrous. Sure, it's another thing to add to the pile. But he may have killed someone! Shouldn't having sex with men fall just a wee bit below that on the "shock and awe" scale?

So, as I say, I looked him up. I had to. (I like to know things.) And I found this clip from another news show, in which another anchor calls him a "drag king" (which is probably a good thing, because god knows what might happen if you used that "queen" word), and he responds by speaking in an effeminate lisping voice.

Who is this guy? I've been reading more about him for awhile now. He's pretty successful in broadcasting. Lots of credits under his belt (so to speak).

I live in a blue-state bubble, and every once in a while, I realize that. This is a successful guy in a huge city. I know there are still plenty of people who behave like this, but I honestly didn't think they held high level reporting jobs for major networks. And the saddest part is that I bet that hardly anyone noticed.

On the other hand, he does have perfectly coiffed hair and a bit of an affected voice in his own right. So maybe there's more to this than meet the eye. Yeah, I can do stereotypes with the best of 'em.

Third Time's the Charm

You know what they say...as Iowa goes, so goes the nation!

Wanna waltz?

No, I haven't forgotten about the post I wrote on March 15, explaining how I don't get this (ad nauseum, no less). I so disagree with the emphasis on marriage as a "magic bullet"--like for example, I find this completely ridiculous:


Seems sorta akin to the claim that racism is dead and gone because we have elected a biracial man as President. It makes me shake my head, it's so silly.

At the same time, I am obviously strongly in favor of any and all civil rights victories, because as ridiculous as I find the exaggerated emphasis, I find the barriers to civil rights far more ridiculous.

And in Iowa? And unanimous? Who would thunk it? Another stereotype blown all to hell. I've been walking around singing songs from The Music Man all day. I'm just that kind of musical geek. (sorry if that blows some sort of image for you).

All in all, I can't help feeling touched for the leap in civil rights, for the mounting evidence in support of my (and others') theory at the time that the laws changed in Massachusetts that no matter what happens, time doesn't move backwards. Once things are out of the box, they never fit back in quite the same way again. I can see the dominoes beginning to fall. Great visual.

So, hooray for Iowa, hooray for common sense and civility, and hooray for the couples and families who I imagine might be feeling a little like this tonight: