Category Archives: lgbt

Fascists, Skinheads, and Nazis (Oh My!)

As you all doubtlessly know, two days ago, a gunman entered a Sikh temple in the little town of Oak Creek, Wisconsin, killing six and injuring four more before being shot dead by police. The killer, one Wade Michael Page, was connected to a number of vicious white-supremacist groups, most notably the “Hammerskins”, a white-supremacist group that focuses on dispersing racist messages and propaganda through music- Page being the founder of one band and a member in another.

Why is this even being brought up here? As strange as it may seem, there’s an argument to be made for the Oak Creek massacre having its origins in culture. Now many of you might be thinking of the Aurora massacre, and no, this isn’t some discussion about our attitudes towards guns, violence in media, or anything of the kind. There’s certainly a good discussion to be had on that subject as well, but it’s not what I’ll be addressing here.

No, what I’m going to be talking about is this:

Fascism.

It’s coming back.

See, the idea that the culture, traditions, and history of specific people group are superior to those of all others and should be promoted and maintained through brute force didn’t die when Hitler blew his bigoted brains all over an underground bunker in Berlin, or when Communist freedom fighters gunned down Mussolini in a picturesque Italian village. It’s been dormant for a long time, but in recent years, it has again shown its ugly face.

Nope- uglier than that…

While there have been plenty of racially motivated murders over the years since Nazism fell (to say nothing of countless lesser hate crimes), what we’re seeing now is a resurgence in full-fledged Fascist ideology- but before we get into that, just a side note.

For many of you, the term “Fascism” probably conjures up images of generic authoritarianism. Obama’s a Fascist. Rush Limbaugh’s a Fascist. That one really strict teacher is a Fascist.

I’ve struggled for a while to come up with a good, succinct definition for what Fascism is all really about, so I’m going to offer this illustration. To a Fascist, his people (often, race) are inherently great and good, and they are inherently great and good because of their traditions, values, and culture, which are all also inherent to them. The greatness of the nation is lost when evil, conniving undesirables start pushing their own cultures, values, and traditions, which are subversive and degenerative to the nation. Therefore, these degenerates who threaten the nation must be stomped out (often quite literally), and the “original” culture/traditions/values must be restored, enforced, and maintained through an all-powerful government, police force, military, etc.

There’s more to it, of course. I could talk about the concepts of autocracy, corporatism, use of ancient Roman symbolism, and the like, but for now, let this all above be the definition we work with.

Now why do I say it’s coming back? Certainly if we disregard the recent massacre and the occasional race-related attack, there doesn’t seem to be any major Fascist threat in the US. The KKK isn’t roaming with impudence in the South. Gangs of Nazis aren’t attacking Jewish stores and businesses. Self-proclaimed defenders of the nation aren’t roaming the boarders trying to-

Oh yeah…

Ok, but it’s not like there’s been any major attack on people for having different skin or heritage or religio-

Ok, fine, but it’s not like any of this bigotry has been legislated or-

…Yeah…

See, that’s how it works. It’s subtle, discreet. The great Sinclair Lewis perhaps said it best:

And this is just America. In Europe, Fascism is even more prevalent and less shameless, simply take a look at France, where the government has instituted laws banning certain forms of Muslim garb, or forcibly expelling the Roma Gypsies.

I recall another guy who took actions to get rid of gypsies…

Over in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that “Multiculturalism has failed”

Kinda forgetting about the last time a German chancellor declared the failure of multiculturalism…

…And in Britain, holocaust-denier Nick Griffin, leader of the white-supremacist British Nationalist Party (BNP) was elected to the European Parliament. That’s about the equivalent of the Grand Wizard of the KKK getting elected to congress.

I’d show you an actual picture of Nick Griffin but **** that guy…

And this is to say nothing of the escalating attacks on immigrants across Europe. Why? Because many Europeans and Americans are buying into the idea that the values, traditions, culture, and beliefs of other people are a direct threat to them. I recall in college on particularly nasty student who asserted that “All immigrants should go home”. Interesting, considering he had an Italian last name. Does he mean that he too will leave America? Of course not. Does he mean the Canadians who attended that school? Not at all. “Immigrants” was simply code for those “undesirable brown people”. But don’t take the words of one bigoted student as evidence of this ugly trend- just look at Congressman Steve King’s attempt to make English the “Official Language” of the US!

Now why on earth would you try to make English the official language of the US? It’s not like the vast majority doesn’t already speak it. And what if we did speak Spanish? How would it make a difference to anyone what we speak… unless English was somehow viewed as “inherent” to America!

There’s really part of the problem. It’s a perspective on society. Back in College, I had a conservative friend whose opposition to gay marriage was that “the traditional family is the building block of society, and changing the family weakens society”. I’m not saying he’s a fascist- not at all, but this view of society as a solid, unchanging thing is what really serves to create so much of the general bigotry and outright fascism that we see today. When society’s well-being is linked to culture, to maintain society is to maintain culture, and while there’s a certain logic there, all too often it’s taken to mean that every aspect of culture, right down to traditional gender roles, religion, and racial demographics, must be controlled. It’s the reason why you see Muslims, immigrants, homosexuals, or as the past couple days have shown us, Sikhs, targeted. And don’t for a minute imagine that it’s just Aryans who take up this line of thought. I recently had an encounter with an Asian immigrant who cited that his country was once upon a time a “Christian country”, and that he was concerned at Hindus, Buddhists, and the like building places of worship in his community.

Only where does it end? Suppose you argue that non-Christians should be excluded from a country because their cultures threaten the stability of the nation- what the minority groups? I always want to bring this up when I hear someone make the argument that America is a “Christian Country”- does that include the Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses? What about Unitarians? Episcopalians? Catholics? Mennonites?

That’s the crux of the matter. The Fascists- both the self-declared and the self-deluded- would have us believe that we’re all hopelessly divided. That we cannot respectfully disagree with each other. That you can’t speak Mandarin and I can’t speak Arabic and the two of us get along. That multiculturalism is a fantasy. That we can’t have our own practices and perspectives while all agreeing, to some degree, on how to live together. We’re meant to live in constant fear that if we tolerate anyone who doesn’t fit in, there goes our way of life.

So let it go.

This will be harder for some than others…

The title of this blog is the Culture War Reporters, and perhaps what needs to be understood is that the culture war isn’t something that can (or should) be won. There’s always going to be divergence in opinion and in behavior. There’s always going to be new things coming in, and old things struggling to stay on. There’s always going to be good stuff and bad, so at the end of the day, why worry? Don’t buy the idea that culture can be maintained, or that one group has found all the answers. For all the dark content about murders, genocide, and the like, strange a line from Disney’s Ratatouille should fit so appropriately. Defending his lifestyle against the accusation that it’s “against nature”, Remy the rat declares that “Change is nature”.

Boy Scouts of America Maintains Ban on Gays

About a week ago, I had added my name to a petition being sent to a member of the BSA (that’s Boy Scouts of America) Board of Directors, demanding that the organization’s notorious ban on gays be overturned. A few minutes ago, I found this article at BBC World stating that the board had unanimously rejected the petition.

 

See, I’m an Eagle Scout. I worked my up from cub scouts. I’ve been to the camps, memorized the oaths, and folded the flags. I’m proud of the skills I’ve learned. I’m proud of the leadership training I’ve had. I’m proud of the values of civic duty, environmentalism, and honesty I’ve been given. And I am so very deeply ashamed that even now, an organization that’s been synonymous with decency and helpfulness is choosing to maintain a policy of unabashed bigotry.

 

According to the BSA, homosexuals (both men and women) are prohibited from holding leadership positions in the BSA. Despite maintaining a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell”-esque policy, any individual (employee, member, or even volunteer) who is found to be gay is expelled from the Scouts. The reason given for this was that

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,”

-Chief Executive Bob Mazzuca.

Now let’s just run with that. What Mazzuca seems to be asserting here is that the reason for banning gays from the BSA is that a scout’s first introduction to the controversial topic of homosexuality should be with his parents/pastor/etc. Now maybe you could point out that in this culture, the chances that a kid is going to be exposed to the concept of homosexuality before his parents introduce it to him is pretty dang high. Maybe you could point out that it’s really not something you have any actual control of, and that Mazzuca’s reasoning is just an insultingly shoddy veil for the fact that Mazzuca and the rest of the board just don’t want gays in period. But if we live in a world where a kid won’t encounter homosexuality except by introduction of his parents, there’s still a pretty gaping flaw in that already questionable logic.

 

You remember the bit where I was talking about the stuff I did in boy scouts? Where I said I’ve been to the camps, memorized the oaths, and so on? Yeah, I did more than just that. I shot guns. I fished. I learned to set snares. I threw knives and axes. I used bows.

 
In short, I learned how to kill things.

I gotta ask, which is the more traumatic? Learning that my scoutmaster likes other guys, or learning to shoot a deer or gut a fish?

Surely if I can be trusted to tie knots, use knives, and start fires, I can be trusted to learn that homosexuality exists without going insane and re-enacting Rambo: First Blood, right?

I could only find GIFs from Rambo IV, but the principle is the same…

Interestingly enough, I was exposed to homosexuality in Boy Scouts. Despite Mazzuca’s assertion that the BSA takes no part in bringing up sexuality with its members, the scout troop I was with did take it upon themselves to have a showing of A Time to Tell, an informational video on sexual molestation. The film opens with the host asserting that “…It might feel uncomfortable presenting this subject to an 11 to 14 year old male audience for which it is intended, however, it is because of the unique physical and psychological changes young men experience in adolescence that the subject of sexual molestation should be directly addressed.”

 

Huh- so bringing up the extremely dark and painful subject of sexual abuse is both right and necessary, but any discussion of homosexuality should not be touched.

 

But let’s ignore the lousy excuse offered by the BSA board, and look at some other reasoning. One might try to take up the same line of reasoning used in the argument against gays in the military. That close quarters between straight and gay scouts will make for some seriously awkward and uncomfortable dynamics, and essentially prevent the troop from functioning with the kind of camaraderie it’s intended to have. Of course, I could use the whole logic of “people-sexually-attracted-to-each-other-can’t-work-together” to make a case for segregating men and women. The assumption at play is here is the idiotic old myth that gay guys are attracted to all other guys and just can’t help but act on their impulses.

Case and point.

Ok, so gay guys really don’t have any reason from being just as prepared and honorable as their straight counterparts, but what about scoutmasters? Surely gays shouldn’t be in charge of troops of young men!

Here’s where I think the clincher really is. Once upon a time, people didn’t make any distinction between being gay and being a pedophile. Just take a look at this horrific 1950s PSA labeling pedophiles and child molesters as “homosexuals”.

Crazy, right? If you want to see another interesting take on this, there’s an old Law & Order episode that deals with the whole gay/pedophile distinction not existing in the 50s. But of course, that was all more than half a century ago, and while at the time this may have been the reason against allowing gays to take up leadership positions in the BSA, it really can’t be maintained today.

 

I guess what makes it worse is that as a boyscout, I encountered so many other scouts who were foul, lazy, irresponsible- even some who were outright bullies and sexists. I find it tough to stomach that I had to stand alongside some really lousy kids while a boy who truly embodies the oath and scout law is excluded simply because he’s gay.

 

But apparently that’s what the board thinks makes a good scout- not his values, not his actions. Not his honesty, his courage, or his work-ethic. His sexual orientation, to Mazzuca and his cronies, is apparently more important than any of that.

Homosexuality In Comics As Of May 20th

hulklingwiccankissIn the series following superhero team The Authority Batman/Superman analogues Midnighter and Apollo shared a kiss in 2000. A decade later Kevin Keller premiered in an issue of Veronica, the first openly gay character in Archie Comics history; he meets his future husband in a military hospital after being wounded in action. This year Young Avengers Hulking and Wiccan shared their first kiss, the result of the former proposing to the latter. Not to be outdone, fellow Marvel character Northstar will actually be beating the couple to the altar with his fiance this June.

Two days ago, May 20th, DC Senior VP Publicity Courtney Simmons announced that “One of the major iconic DC characters will reveal that he is gay in a storyline in June.”

As far as the Big Two go, Marvel’s ahead of the game. In this case, “the game” refers to “positive representations of homosexuals in comics.” Northstar announced “I am gay” in 1992, and since then has been followed by characters such as X-Man Graymalkin, Avengers Academy member Striker, and alternate-universe versions of many, many characters. In comparison, “new” Batwoman Katherine Kane is a lesbian, and is currently heading her own ongoing series, something Marvel can’t claim.

To be more specific, DC is going to reintroduce a previously existing character (previously straight) as “one of [their] most prominent gay characters.” This means that the character will not be Batman or Superman. As someone who can’t really get behind the company’s New 52 2011 relaunch I cannot speculate on what remaining characters may be coming out as gay. What I can state, however, is why other “major, iconic” characters could never be rebooted in this way.

It’s not because of fan outrage, though that’s a factor. So many of the really iconic DC characters have rich histories which involve their heterosexual love interests. It’s difficult to imagine Clark Kent without Lois Lane and her reporting on the Big Blue Boy Scout, and basically every male hero has a girlfriend who has played a significant part in their formation as a character. Batman is a character whose sexuality defines him almost not at all, though in his case his long-questioned relationship with the Boy Wonder may prove iffy.

That being said, I don’t see how major and/or iconic this gay DC character can be. To be that said character will have to have been around for a number of years. Fans are always complaining about something, but to retcon years of history will be a very messy process. I’m looking forward to finding out who it is, but am skeptical about how much clout the person will really have in the grand scheme of things.

Naked Boys Singing: For Your Enjoyment

After a 13-year run, Naked Boys Singing left its off-Broadway stage, leaving the rest of us to switch to plan B for our bachelorette parties1.

It’s really quite incredible, though – the show ran for 13 years, which is the second longest off-Broadway show ever (the first is the Fantasticks), has had over 3,000 performances and, not surprisingly, hosted over 2,000 bachelorette parties. It’s also been translated into 5 different languages.

The show is a gem of off-Broadway qualified ridiculousness. One of the writers has an Emmy, they had the choreographer from The Producers, 2 of the cast members were porn stars, and one of the cast members only has one testicle (and used a prosthetic). The show is a musical revue, and opens with a song called “Gratuitious Nudity” and goes on to serenade the audience with (for example) a number about being gay in a men’s locker room, and something called “Muscle Addiction”. From reviews, towels and jock straps are sometimes involved, but the majority of the show is performed nude.

The show was more than a little unconventional: after opening and advertising predominately to the young gay population in NYC, the producers quickly realised that they needed a broader viewer base – 13 years later, the show was marketed to “people from all walks of life,” including “men, women, senior citizens, mothers, fathers, Rabbis, [and] strippers” and was a popular bachelorette party destination. The theatre was also once booked by a gay nudist colony, the members of which brought gallon plastic baggies (for their clothes) and towels (for the seats). In 2005, a Milwaukee production of the show was closed down by police, and shows in Atlanta, San Juan, and Provincetown (Mass.) were shut down by the city governments as well. After the Milwaukee production was shut down, the Milwaukee Gay Arts Center won a censorship lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee for $20,000.

If you feel like you’ve missed out, the show is still playing London.

1And unconventional bachelor parties.

Same Sex Marriage in the Current Context

source: www.theamericanmagazine.com

The Stonewall Inn, 1969

The passing of the monumental bill by the NY Senate last Friday (in addition to the UN commitment to protect LGBT rights) demonstrated clearly the increasing social acceptability of same sex marriage. While the movement started and is continuing with the passionate support of marginalized people, the case for same sex marriage is gaining momentum because it is becoming “cooler” to support it – being pro-gay-marriage is slowly becoming the default, and voting against it is more commonly seen as bigoted and discriminatory.

Even just a few years ago, only the more socially liberal Democrats would support same sex marriage (like in 2009, when every Republican and 8 Democratic senators voted the bill down in the New York Senate) – but this last Friday all of the Democrats in the Senate and 4 Republicans voted for gay marriage.  So…what changed? 2011’s bill included that amendment that protects the right of religious institutions who refuse to marry same-sex couples, but that wasn’t the only reason – it’s the slow change of what’s socially expected.

In that strange way that things viewed as “radical notions” can eventually trickle down and become accepted common sense, supporting same sex marriage is becoming the the norm.  Not long ago, anyone who campaigned for same sex marriage in the US had to explain their case persuasively and passionately to be taken seriously, but now the pressure is shifting to the other side – those who oppose gay marriage are the ones who are required to defend themselves. Being pro-gay-marriage is almost universally assumed for Democrats, and some Republicans are “coming out” as supportive of the cause too, like NY Senator Roy McDonald, who said “f*** it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.” Apologetic hand gestures and the requisite “But hear me out…” are being reassigned to the “traditional marriage” crowd – especially among academics, the upper middle class, and young adults, it would seem.

Interestingly, as views on gay marriage are shifting, the view of marriage in general is changing too. The “married scene” (or whatever you would call it) is one filled with unmarried couples who refer to their pets as children, couples who live together for decades before getting married, couples who don’t get married at all, divorce cakes, and an annoyingly-often-quoted-and-never-cited 50% divorce rate.The Western idea of marriage is conflicted: we still say “Til death do us part”, we still tend to teach (or at least show) the ideals of marry-young-and-live-Happily-Ever-After, but we’re getting married at an older age2 and marriages don’t tend to last “til death”.  I’m not here to argue the healthiness or unhealthiness of divorce or cohabitation, – the point is that, whether good or bad, the idea of marriage is changing in the West, and we don’t seem to be sure into what.  Same sex couples are fighting and protesting their way into a strange and fickle club; one that (technically and idealistically) promises lifetime commitment and doesn’t really deliver.  It’ll be interesting to see what the statistics will look like for newly married same sex couples in the future.

source: www.nytime.com/slideshow/2011/06/25

Outside the Stonewall Inn, June 23, 2011

Support for LGBT marriage rights seems to be going the way of racial equality and women’s rights – our kids are probably going to be baffled at the idea of the Defense of Marriage Act, like we were at some women’s rights and racial discrimination issues that we take for granted. One difference, though, is that same sex couples, unlike women and racial minorities, will definitely always be a minority, unless demographics change hugely (or there are way more of us in the closet than we thought). This is another thing that’s going to make the future interesting for same-sex politics – the discrimination might just cycle around again after all of the people who witnessed the fight for marriage equality are gone, unless the idea of LGBT rights settles itself into a comfortable position as the social norm. That seems to be the case so far.3

1 the best source I could find, figure 13; the second best source I could find
2 source
3But maybe this will be a short-lived trend, considering the growing muslim population in the EU and the US; juxtapose that with the fact that the 7-9ish countries in which homosexual activity is punishable by death (Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Mauritania, Yemen, Somalia [Somaliland], Afghanistan [capital punishment until 2009, which is still often unoficially enforced], Pakistan [sometimes, where Shar’ia law applies]) are all Muslim-majority states. If demographic trends continue and Muslim-majority states continue to tend to enforce Shar’ia law, it doesn’t seem that same sex marriage will be able to remain a social norm, at least in Europe, for more than a few decades.