Day Without a Gay: I Think I'll Stay Gay Tomorrow, Thank You Very Much

I've spent quite a bit of time trying to decide what I think about Day Without a Gay. When I first heard of it about a month ago on Facebook, I didn't think much of it. There's a Facebook group for just about everything, so I wanted to wait and see if it actually caught on. Thing is, tomorrow is my birthday, so now that the big ol' gay protest is apparently going down, I figured I should at least develop an opinion on the subject.

The purpose of Day Without a Gay, according to its website, is that "On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work. You are encouraged to call in 'gay'--and donate your time to service!" This is all fine and dandy, I suppose, but it just sort of rubs me the wrong way.

I mean, I get it. We're trying to increase exposure of the gay community's importance by showing how many of us there are while at the same time providing service to the community and looking like super great human beings. Blah blah blah. These things I 100% support.

However, I just don't know if I'm behind the way it's being done. Why, exactly, must we take a day off work to provide this service? What's the point of all of us just not showing up for work? Couldn't the service occur on the weekend, or after work, or during my lunch break or something?

My understanding of the argument is that if we all don't show up, then society will be able to see what huge role we play in society. *Gasp* Who will cut our hair? Who will teach our gym classes and golf lessons? Will there be anyone to host the cable news?

Okay. I get that. But what's the point of not going to work? Proposition 8 didn't pass because people were unaware that homos decorate all the houses and produce all the theater, it passed because of ignorance and fear of gay people and the way that we love. We don't need to be staying home from work, we need to be talking to people about the similarities between us and how we can work together to accept and understand each other.

I remember when I was in college and the immigrant community organized a similar event. Throughout the country, immigrants banded together to show their impact on the economy by staying home from work for one day. THAT made sense. See, the whole argument they were trying to make was that their community plays an enormous role in the economy of the United States, and they were tired of being exploited for their contribution while at the same time being put down for their status as an immigrant.

The Gays are totally different. Labor and employment rights are not the reason for Day Without a Gay.[1] In fact, the stated reason for it is a reaction to referendums and legislation which have taken away or limited our right to marry and adopt children. Someone explain to me what this has to do with going to work, and how it will help things for me to just not show up?

It seems to me that the only people/companies/organizations that are going to be affected by this action are the ones who are already supportive of the gay rights movement. See, being able to just "call in gay" is a luxury of either people who have flex time off (read: rich folks with cushy jobs) or people who work in jobs who support this event and will look the other way and allow this to be counted as a sick day. I know for sure that if I had called into my retail job saying "I'm calling in gay" they would have said "yeah, okay, see you in 15 minutes." Working people don't just have the ability to skip a day, and the insinuation that they could is just plain elitist and annoying. People have to feed their families, pay their rent, buy new shoes, whatever. I'm not going to get into a "in these tough times" diatribe, but the idea that taking a day off is as simple as one phone call ignores the reality of most people in the United States.

I have to be honest. I'm not really one for a protest. A stern call to my Congress person? Sure thing. A letter in support of a cause? Yessiree. A door knock or fifty for the candidate of my choice? I'll be there for you, my friend. But a huddled group of people yelling "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" is just not really my style. I realize that's not really what we're doing here, but it seems analogous. This type of action is not what will convince people of acceptance and understanding. Acceptance and understanding has to come from, you know, FUCKING UNDERSTANDING. How does not going to work one day promote understanding? I imagine the conversation going like this:

"Hey boss, you know how my being a homo sort of freaks you out?"

"Why yes, good employee, it really does scare me a bit."

"Well, boss, I've decided that in order to help you understand my importance to the community around me, I'm not going to come to work tomorrow. Instead, I'm going to volunteer at the Red Cross."

"Wait. Hmmm. What? Couldn't you volunteer on the weekend? Wait. What does this have to do with you being a homo again?"

"You see boss, we homos care about the community. So I'm not coming to work. I'm doing community service."

"Community service is good, but tell me about the homo thing again? That part's still pretty scary. Why not come to work? I'm confused..."

I'm not saying that a group reaction and effort is a bad thing; in fact, I believe it is necessary. Also, I sincerely believe that the people who planned this event did so because they wanted to do something big after Prop 8 passed to show how many people support LGBT equality. I just think that in the end, Day Without a Gay misses the point and ends up coming across sophomoric and out of touch.

I'd love to know what you all think.


[1] Please do not misconstrue my words to mean that no members of the LGBT community deals with labor or employment issues because of their gender identity or sexuality. I realize that this is a large problem, and I'm excited to talk about the ENDA in another post soon. All I'm saying is that those things are unrelated to this.

Gays on TV: No Girls Allowed!

Okay, so GLAAD put out a press release today to applaud the major TV networks (read: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and the CW) for a higher level of inclusion. Let's move quickly past the fact that we're supposed to stand up and clap when representation raises to a whopping 2.6% onto the actual meat of the statistics.

It took me a second to find out who this 2.6% actually included, which is 16 people appearing on a total of 12 shows. I attempted to compile a list from the hodge-podge that GLAAD lists, but that proved harder than it may seem. Suffice it to say, one thing is glaringly obvious: lesbians are not welcome on network television.

Now, I wrote my thesis in college about this very topic, so its not like the absence of lesbians, particularly butch lesbians, in the media is some breaking news that's flying across the wire. But, when I have to read press releases lauding the entertainment industry for having a couple white gay dudes on their primetime roster, it gives me permission to rant about gender theory and equality for like one fucking second.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are a couple of women-dating-women counted in GLAAD's number. And don't you dare think for one second that I mean to discount them because of some bisexual-loathing sentiment that is all too rampant in the lesbian community (a blog for another time, certainly). Bisexual women are what I live for; they are a vital part of the community if only because otherwise I would have no one to date.

BUT, of the 16 main and supporting characters counted in GLAAD's glorification of network television, less than a third are women. And, from what I can see, there are exactly ZERO self-proclaimed lesbians. All are either overtly labeled as bisexual by show bios, or are said to be "known to have sexual trysts with women" or some other objectifying quip. All of the women are super femme-y, super hot and very sexualized, which rings far more of an attempt to attract male viewers than it does of LGBT inclusion.

In other news, Lindsay Lohan came out, which is so totally awesome. I couldn't tell you why I enjoy her, but I feel like she'd have been my super crazy fun friend if we'd met at the bar 3 years ago.

I'm Gonna Write You a Letter

You know what bugs me?

The Homo Acronym Phenomenon. We'll call it HAP. Heh.

So, in order to be inclusive (or exclusive, depending on who you ask) at some point in history, a little ol' acronym of LGBT was created. It stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender but even this is controversial, as it is sometimes listed as GLBT (when the boys want to go first).


Now, the best part is that this little acronym has now morphed into a full-on attack of letters. At its "most inclusive" (really?) is can stretch all the way to LGBTTTIQQAA, which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Two-Spirited, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual and Allies.

Do not get me started on Asexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation. Seriously.

Also great about the acronym game is the fact that it changes based on who you ask, so a Q to one person may mean queer but to another means questioning. Wikipedia argues that people in Minnesota prefer the GLBT as opposed to the LGBT, but I'm not sure of the basis.

Now, all of this ranting is obviously going to come of as being "intolerant" (we'll get to my hatred of the term "tolerance" at another time, I think I've used up my tangent quota for the day) or not inclusive enough of every member of this here queer community but really its just an annoyance of the extreme-ness that inclusiveness has come to. I genuinely want everyone to feel welcome, but Jesus H. Are you being serious with the fucking 11 letter label?

The absolute IRONY of the whole thing is that the very people that "we" are working to include in this ridiculous label don't even want the inclusion. From my understanding (which is not first-hand, so quit fucking asking), trans-people don't necessarily feel as though their cause is the same as that of the lezzies and gays (and the damn Bisexuals too, fuck!). So it seems pretty funny to me that all this work is being done to include those that don't want to be a part.

Of course, I don't mean that we shouldn't all work together and hold hands and love and support and sing Kumbaya. Seriously. In the greater "Queer" community, I certainly believe that we should support as much as possible, whenever possible. But I KNOW that problems within the community are not being solved by adding another fucking letter to an already-ridiculous group of letters.

So quit correcting me when I say LGBT. Just call me old school if it helps you sleep at night.

I'm not being radical when I kiss you; I don't love you to make a point

"The negative influences on the gay culture are being promulgated by people who are widely known to be gay and who continue to act as if it's a topic of non-discussion. I'm thinking specifically about people like Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper. They're gay, but never talk about it. They are perpetuating the notion that being gay is a secret shame. We still respect closets far too much in this society. I'm very proud of the fact that Ian McKellen once asked me if I thought he should come out, and I said yes--and he's credited me with that. I tend to be a little cheeky about this topic because I think it's important--there are teenagers still committing suicide over their sexuality."

- Armisted Maupin
http://www.7x7sf.com/people/profiles/7555377.html



I don't really know what to think of this.

There's all sorts of theory racing through my head, and every bit of it conflicts the other.

On one hand, I disagree. I am adamant in my belief that not everyone should have to be a poster-gay, and no one should be forced to disclose things about themself (grammatically incorrect yet gender inclusive? I choose yes) that they are not ready for.

Yet, I don't know that this is Maupin's argument.

Whether or not they choose to acknowledge it, by virtue of the society in which we live every single person is assumed to be straight unless they explicitly say that they are not. Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper are only the most glaring examples of this. All the kids in the gay community are sitting in their armchairs, watching CNN, knowing that Coops is a friend of Dorothy, yet if I were to bring this up to someone else (a non-gay, of course) it would not only be absurd, but offensive.

And this is where I have the problem.

See, if its a negative to assume that someone is gay, then we can just use our seventh grade algebra skills to realize that it is also negative to actually be gay. So when I say, "Oh man, look at that lez over there" and Sally Straightfriend says "You really shouldn't assume she's a lez," I get real, real offended.

Why shouldn't I assume? People assume I'm straight all the time, and that's just fucking weird. Like its such a bad thing to assume a person is a homo? Even if I'm wrong, I can just be like, "Oopsy, I mean, how's your boyfriend Linda, my bad." No harm, no foul.

So, even though they may not mean to, I have to agree with Maupin when he argues that "they are perpetuating the idea that being gay is a secret shame." I sincerely doubt that this is their reasoning for not coming out. I have to assume that Jodie Foster is cool with her sexuality, and just doesn't really feel like talking about it all the time as the only facet of her identity.

But, that doesn't change the way it is perceived. Is this her fault? Certainly not. Is it her job to fix it? I'm not really sure. If you know that what you're doing is hurting a community that you're a part of, then to continue doing it seems odd, but I also realize that to come out would be pretty much putting the camera on only that for at least the next 4 years, after which is will always be mentioned before anything actually worthwhile. What used to be "Oscar-winning actress" will now forever be "Lesbian Oscar-winning Actress". And that's just fucking annoying.

So what's a gay to do? Get pissed off when the media outs people? Get pissed off at people for not being out? Stop reading stuff that once out-ed someone before it seemed they were ready, or stop watching movies that ohmygodyou'reobviouslygay people are in until they fess up? It's doubtful that any of this would do any good.

See, the problem is never the staff writer at the NY Post or Jodie Foster. Its the society that places so much value on being straight, where so much excitement is caused by knowing whether or not someone is a homo. How do we fix that? I'm fairly certain that Maupin's argument is that you fix it by normalizing it, and with that I have to agree. If it was never a big deal when someone came out, then it would never be a big deal if someone stayed in, either.

So, you know, keep that in mind.