The debate over whether professionally closeted/socially openly gay public figures bear a social responsibility to come out arises every so often, and AfterElton’s Christie Keith takes a look at the pros and cons in “Inching out of the closet.”
“Inching out” refers to the relatively recent phenomenon of celebrities not bothering to hide from cameras while “off-duty” — mingling in gay bars, or out shopping with their partners. They are fully confident that the mainstream gay and straight press will not press them in “on-duty” interviews about their sexual orientation, thus informing much of gaydar-deficient America that the celebrity is gay.
The problem for this kind of semi-closeted public figure is that, in an age of stalkerazzi, camera phones and gossip bloggers posting telltale photos on the Internet, it’s impossible to keep the door of the closet only partially open. And that’s what happened, for example, to former boy-bander Lance Bass and Neil Patrick Harris.
Take actor Neil Patrick Harris, who publicly came out a year and aMore after the jump.
half ago in the pages of People magazine. Many gay fans considered him to be “out” even before he acknowledged it to the press, treating reports he’d been seen in public with his male partner as a tacit coming out announcement.Before Harris told People that he was “proud to say that I
am a very content gay man living my life to the fullest,” Towleroad.com blogged that Harris’ publicist had issued a statement denying he was “of that persuasion.” Reaction among readers was amused surprise. “Has his
publicist met Neil Patrick Harris?” wrote one.Harris was yet another public figure who was “out in the community, but not in the press.” In other words, gay fans knew, along with varying numbers of other people, but it hadn’t been reported in the media, and mainstream America was perfectly free to ignore it if they wished. In fact, most of mainstream America isn’t ignoring the existence of queer celebrities; thanks to close-mouthed celebrities and a complicit media, they really don’t know.
One of my media man-crushes, the awesome reporter Anderson Cooper, is another public figure who can’t figure out whether he wants to publicly be out or in, despite the crushing amount of bandwidth consumed by folks picking the lock on his closet door with stories of his social life outside CNN’s studios. Class act Jodie Foster recently did an inch-out of her own, though her orientation had to be the worst kept secret on the planet.
Other than any thrill it might give us to get the joke when Anderson Cooper laughs that fellow CNN anchor Erica Hill’s husband doesn’t have anything to worry about from him, or when Jodie Foster thanks her “beautiful Cydney” at a Hollywood event, not much. That’s because it’s not inside jokes and white-lipped references to privacy that advance GLBT equality and civil rights; it’s visibility.Keith has a clear point-of-view in this piece — all of this tip-toeing out of the closet, while it may be easier for the celebrities in question, only reinforces that there is something wrong/bad/embarrassing/private about being gay.
We’re not talking about sex acts, we’re talking about disclosing and reporting the mundane facts that most heterosexual celebrities cough up for interviews without breaking a sweat. Wives/husbands, procreative activities, significant others, even one-night flings are discussed ad nauseum in supermarket tabloids, but many inching out celebrities bristle at the most basic aspects of their lives that might reveal that they are gay.
The bottom line is that coming out as gay – actually saying the words clearly, and for the record – is the single most powerful tool we have to achieve equality. “Inching out” might make gay celebrities’ lives easier, and they have every right to do it if they want to. But as a community, we also have the right to examine the impact of that choice on us.Go read the rest of this lengthy article, which also profiles other actors and celebs who chose the inch-out course (Marco Del Rossi), and speaks with Sir Ian McKellan.And it does have one. It perpetuates the one thing that has done more harm to gay rights than any other institution: the closet. Because even if a public figure is “out in the community,” until they’re also “out in the press” – until their coming out statement is on the pages of People magazine – mainstream America will continue on, blissfully unaware that their favorite actor, a powerful politician, or a respected business leader is queer.
***
Over at my pad, there was this comment:
It’s just nobody’s business but theirs. For a nation of starfuckers I realise that’s a heresy, but it seems to me that normalising being gay is tied in with acting like being gay is normal. Which may mean for some keeping their private life private. Like normal people do.My response:
but the problem is, normal people don’t …“Normal” people talk about what they did over the weekend with their spouses.
“Normal” people discuss aspects of their social lives (who they are dating, socializing with).
“Normal” people put pictures of their sig other on their desks at work.
Heteronormativity allows these expressions to occur without judgment. When someone who is gay does any of the above, it can be considered normal, subversive, or offensive (to the point of getting one fired/beaten up/killed, for example) depending on where you are. The celebs we are talking about don’t face that level of risk, yet they cling to the closet door.
That does telegraph to both the media covering them, and those in the LGBT community who know they are only semi-closeted, that the celebs think being fully out more about image control than privacy if they already out socially. The media, in particular is egregious on this front, because most have a DADT attitude about the “inch out” crowd that they do not about het celebs.
65 Responses to “Gay celebs: inching out versus coming out”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
i’m never going to get it. i’m never going to understand why i should CARE who nil Patrick Harris or Jodi Foster or my next door neighbor have sex with!
i don’t care if someone is gay (except the really hot gay guy i had a crush on, the dirty so-and-so - broke my heart. WHY SHOULD I???
“Normal” people talk about what they did over the weekend with their spouses.
“Normal” people put pictures of their sig other on their desks at work.
Isn’t this exactly what happens, though? I know a number of non-famous people who discuss what they did on their weekends and have pictures of their spouses on their desks, but who do so in a very normal way. I imagine the matter of “open secrets” works the same in the CNN workplace. Cooper talks to his coworkers the way we talk to ours, he just doesn’t make an issue out of it in his public life.
(That said, Cooper’s a bit of a different story, in that he’s shunned the tabloid spotlight his mother adored for reasons other than his sexuality. In interviews, he’s spoken of not wanting people to think his achievements rely on his parentage. I can understand that.)
Another way to put this is that we’re dealing with chickens and eggs here: most of my gay friends are as private about their personal lives, but I don’t know whether that’s because they had to be for most of their lives, or because intelligent, introspective people tend to be more private. So when you talk about Cooper and Foster, I see two people I think would’ve been withdrawn anyway, and it’s difficult to determine what the reason for their reticence is.
Pam, I think that’s a great response to the “normalization” comment. Really drives home how heterosexuality is taken for granted, but the same comment by a gay person would be taken as a personal/political statement.
I don’t do any of those three things in my professional life, despite the fact that the banal details of my heterosexual existence are unlikely to upset my colleagues. Maybe you’re conflating “clinging to the closet door” with “preferring not to discuss one’s personal life outside of one’s circle of friends.” If my career made me a figure of media interest, I doubt I’d be any more forthcoming to journalists than I’ve always been with professional acquaintances, and I’d hope I had something more interesting to share with interviewers than the details of my relationships and/or fuckery.
It’s a great and positive thing when gay celebrities are forthcoming about their lives in the media, if they enjoy discussing the personal sphere - after all, a huge market certainly exists for what is essentially small talk, and heteronormativity is distressing no matter where it’s found. It just seems a bit presumptuous to ascribe all these celebrities’ refusal to join in as indicative of “clinging to the closet door.” I’ll bet more than a few of them are at least as contemptuous towards celebrity culture as some of us here - one suspects they’d have even more reason to be.
Although, damn, Neil, HAS your publicist ever met you?
I’d like to point out that while these people are successful actors and therefore ‘public figures’, they are NOT political figures. There is a great illustrative line in a cheeky-satire flick said by (Oscar Winner, ‘you like me, you really, really, like me’ ) Sally Fields … “I’m not a brain surgeon, I’m JUST A WORKING ACTRESS!”
I do not find it appropriate to EXPECT anything from anyone! Gay Rights do not REQUIRE pretty faces freshly ‘out of the closet’ and i don’t think that is “the one thing that has done more harm to gay rights than any other institution: the closet.” Gay Rights require intelligent activism, persistence, and education; either the person is actively working on securing rights and educating others or they are not. It’s not difficult to understand the equation, since hatred (like racism) is a ‘learned behavior’.
Movie stars may seem like good advocates, but in terms of their careers, it can be rather limiting (if not devastating) and that is a a fundamental truth of the ‘Hollywood: Appearance Is Everything’ industry in the global, reality-based community, in which we live.
Consider this, they are individuals who are already ‘in the public eye’ and required to attend public functions and have less rights than many private citizens. Expecting them to ‘Come Out’ and share their private lives … especially since their private lives have nothing to do with their job … (Please remember, these people PLAY MAKE-BELIEVE PEOPLE!! ) is hard since THEIR PRIVATE LIFE IS THE ONLY SAFE PLACE many of them have! To not consider the personal, professional risk of ‘coming out’ is to deny the atmosphere in which we live.
Just to contemplate coming out in this ‘right-wing kill-em-all’ climate is enough to make one pause. I am not gay, but i have loads of friends and their lives ain’t easy but extremely beautiful!
Lastly, it all starts with each individual recognizing that WE ARE ALL EQUAL. Remember, it starts with the person in the mirror!
To discuss ‘Inching Out’ implies that the person has been disingenuous, yet Jodi Foster has been mute! That’s not disingenuous, it’s just private.
I am a black woman and will tell you that “Either you IS or you AINT” … so, when it comes to discrimination we all know the depth and root of the pathology is HATRED. Standing up to that evil root is not easy … so give the ‘working actors’ a break … even if they are banking loads of bucks, they are still just people trying to cope in a hostile environment. They are afforded the same equal rights to privacy as the rest of us. Right? Let them come to terms with their life choices they way we all do, one day, one challenge, one moment of strength at a time.
OH, and Pam, i love this blog but for the record … even ‘Normal’ people don’t share sex stories, have pics on their desk, and all the other things you cited. Some of us, ESPECIALLY, in the business environment are quite careful and private about our personal lives. I also do not think is the point. Clearly, if you want to put pics of your partner on the desk, do it! If you feel intimidated, get over it and start protesting and be part of the movement. Again, start with yourself, your friends, your workplace.
Sunburnt, in my experience, a heterosexual man (this almost always applies to men) who has a wife or significant other, and yet makes it a practice to be extremely tight-lipped and never mention said wife or girlfriend in the workplace, is often doing so because of ulterior motives. He wants to pretend that he’s single, and do a little fishin’ off the company pier. Or he wants to give the impression that yes, he’s married, but very unhappily, and is on the make. So I’m a little cynical.
WRT Jodie Foster, perhaps the John Hinckley incident has made her very, very wary of revealing too much of her private life, and I can’t blame her for that. Still and all, I agree with Pam, that if more gay celebrities were out and nonchalant about it, this would make being gay more mundane, and acceptable to the mainstream. IMO, it should be mundane. Who cares who a celebrity is dating or married to or sleeping with as long as it’s an adult human?
I agree with Sunburnt and disagree with Ailurophile.
“Normal” people talk about what they did over the weekend … discuss aspects of their social lives (who they are dating, socializing with) … put pictures of their sig other on their desks at work.
I’m het, but I guess I’m not “normal”. Because I don’t do any of these things, either single or partnered. It really rubs me the wrong way that my co-workers (including those who make salary decisions) have any interest beyond my performance at work.
Class act Jodie Foster recently did an inch-out of her own, though her orientation had to be the worst kept secret on the planet.
How exactly does it count as “inching out” if you were never in to begin with? (I don’t follow celeb gossip closely enough to be certain this is true of Foster, but it’s certainly true of many.) Gay people who are not and never have been closeted do not owe the world a big announcement when their heterosexual counterparts never have to make a similar gesture; urging them to may serve the cause of solidarity but in equal measure it reinforces heteronormativity. People are not straight until declared otherwise.
There’s a bit of a difference between trying to keep your private life out of the papers (while using our bff heteronormativity to get everyone to think you’re straight) and actively trying to pass. Much of the time, these celebrities that are “inching out” are people who go on “dates” with celebrities of the opposite sex for the paparazzi cameras (i.e. for public consumption), but “everyone” knows that they are, in fact, queer.
There’s this whole weird elitist in-club vibe to it. Most people with some connection to the entertainment industry knows of at least two or three queer celebrities who are “not out”. As in, you can talk about their queerness within the club, but not to the general public. Everyone around them–their coworkers, bosses, friends, and yes–reporters, will know that they are gay. But it doesn’t go to print because they didn’t say anything and, well, there aren’t any pictures.
There may just be some who want to keep their private lives private. But performers are very rarely private people. They undoubtedly do talk to their friends and coworkers about their lives They are just trying to pass as straight for the rubes, which is why it reinforces the whole vibe that queerness can be whispered about in private, but isn’t fit for discussion in public.
They get the benefits of being out–they can talk about what they did over the weekend with their coworkers, etc.–without having to worry about much of the downside.
Celebrities coming out is actually a pretty big deal.
I remember growing up in the early 90s and not seeing any visible open gay and lesbian people. This had the effect of making me feel more isolated and alone. As the decade progressed some more high profile celebrities started to come out. This created more awareness for gay teens as well as many straight people. In 2008, it may be hard to think back to how much things changed because of more visibility. As much as we may like to knock celebrity culture, there is no doubt that highly visible out gay men and women have helped educate people.
I still think its important. There is no reason Anderson Cooper can not be out. By not being out it makes it look like being gay is somehow still shameful.
Pam is right also about being out to one’s coworkers. Its very easy for heterosexuals to say that they do not discuss their private life at work. You don’t have to. It comes up in subtle ways. Most straight folks don’t even notice how often it comes up or is implied. Everyone assumes you are heterosexual and starts from there. When you are gay its hard not to notice these assumptions or pressures. Thats when you realize the very real political nature of being out.
Well, I am “normal” too, and I DO talk about by heterosexual relationship, what I did on the weekend, etc with coworkers. It’s not like I go into hugely personal details, but I don’t consider saying “my boyfriend and I watched a movie and visited some friends on the weekend” to be hugely personal stuff.
If my partner and I were the same gender, however, it would be considered “personal” information, it would be taboo, and I’d have to worry about people discriminating against me because of it. I think that people who are saying “I’m heterosexual and I don’t talk about my personal life” are perhaps not examining how their heterosexual privilege is operating here. You may choose not to divulge even the most inconsequential details of your personal life to your coworkers, and that’s fine, but if you wanted to, that option would be open to you without compromising your safety and comfort with your coworkers.
I dunno, I can see two sides to this. Maybe it is a good thing that some celebs don’t feel the need to publically proclaim but just live their lives like normal - it suggests an end to heteronormative-ness (is that a word?) - i.e. they don’t assume everyone thinks they are straight so they don’t need to announce otherwise.
On the other hand, whilst such an assumption might work in a cosmopolitan arena like LA, it almost certainly doesn’t translate to the wider, heteronormative, world.
I think though that there are still too many celebs actively trying to keep their orientation a secret and being two faced about it - that’s the sort of thing that makes it look as if they are ashamed.
If you feel intimidated, get over it and start protesting and be part of the movement. Again, start with yourself, your friends, your workplace.
That’s right. And I am a private person, I try to keep my private life (as well as my blogging and work lives) separate. I think talking about your sex life in the workplace is inappropriate. [The first things people always manage to conflate in these discussions are SEX ACTS and SEXUAL ORIENTATION. They are not one and the same, after all, one can be straight or gay and be celibate.]
That doesn’t, however, mean that I my colleagues don’t know I’m married to a woman. I have a picture of Kate on my desk. They ask about her in a casual matter as many would about someone’s spouse or kids. I volunteer what I’m comfortable with - there is no shame in straight folks knowing the mundane information that makes us more alike than less alike. That’s how progress moves forward,
I don’t have the prospect of being fired over my head as many LGBTs do (I work at a university that has protections on orientation and gender identity), so I have, unlike many of these celebrities with little to lose, chosen to live fully out of the closet in ways many heterosexuals do without any fear of reprisal.
No one is asking these public figures to be “activists” in the traditional sense. The fact that people feel compelled to label a simple mention of a sig other as private, dangerous or political shows you the difference that still exists between being straight and gay.
Just as an example:
Anyone who wears a wedding ring is publicly stating that they are in a relationship. Any straight person wearing a wedding ring who things that they “don’t discuss their private life” needs to get a clue.
And yes, some gay people wear wedding / commitment rings, but that doesn’t change the statement being made. Given the percentages, a wedding ring is still seen by everyone as a statement of a heterosexual relationship unless otherwise clarified.
This is one of those situations where straight people simply need to listen better. Just as women are often validly offended by men who claim there isn’t a patriarchy, straight people who claim there is no such thing as heteronormativity need to wake up.
Denelian, kicking off the comments: “i’m never going to get it. i’m never going to understand why i should CARE who nil Patrick Harris or Jodi Foster or my next door neighbor have sex with!”
But you see, the whole point of the post is what you got utterly wrong. Coming out isn’t about “who you have sex with” and this isn’t about whether you “should care.”
It is about our being free not to have to hide.
People who say that they don’t care about the details of gay people’s lives and then use it as a reason to maintain the closet get it backwards (so do gay people who stay in the closet because “it is none of their business.)
When I have to worry that anyone who finds out I am gay can bring my life crashing down, when being seen with my partner or buying a house together or doing any of a million things straight people do could cost me my job or my safety, then I am making my sexual orientation everyone’s business. I have to care what every single total stranger who might happen by thinks or knows. I have to worry what my boss might know or care. I have to alter the day to day details of my life on a constant basis in front of every single fucking person on the planet. In short, I care what everyone thinks, enough to change my life over the unexamined opinions of total strangers, not to mention friends, family, and coworkers.
On the other hand, if I am out, and that knowledge is available to anyone who cares, then I am free to have it be none of their business what I do. I don’t have to care if they find out, and I don’t have to care what they think. Paradoxically, it is far easier to feel private and actually experience privacy, when the basic information is public knowledge. You can live in a world where metaphorical people are not peering in your windows (and that means the kitchen just as much as the bedroom) and watching your every move for some tell-tale giveaway mannerism.
It’s been mentioned, but it is incredibly tiresome when people go immediately to “who you sleep with” as the entire definition of being gay.
If someone told you that they were engaged, would your answer be “I don’t care who you sleep with?” If not, then fucking stop doing that to gay people.
Peter
Many felt that Jodi was only working because of her gayness. Something about the styish lesbian casting couch.
Most folks, other than rabid fundies, could care less about your sex life. Keep it to yourself (unless it’s kids, then die). We are more likely to worry about your skills, abilities, and performance.
The thing is that the three examples- Cooper, Harris and Foster- all have reasons other than their sexual orientation for remaining private. Each has faced intense media scrutiny early on in their lives (mother, early success, early success and Presidential shooter infatuation) that makes it hard for them to have a personal life. The reticence to divulge anything then becomes a defense of any personal space and not just in a specific area of their lives. It isn’t just who they are partnered with that they keep under wraps, it is their whole non-professional existence. Harris’ inching out is probably due to the fact that he is currently in a long running show and so is more available than he would normally be.
That being said, I often use Cooper and Foster as examples when talking to older people about gay rights legal issues. Quiet long-term partnerships and enduring relationships are easier for people who have been married 10+ years to understand than the standard tabloid fare. They understand that people who have shared a life together would want to ensure that their wishes and well-being are in the hands of their long-term partner. They understand that after sharing a home for decades that the survivor in a relationship would want to keep those memories intact by retaining the home. It makes it easier for them to understand how such couples would want legal protections in place to help them do just that.
“Many felt that Jodi was only working because of her gayness. Something about the styish lesbian casting couch.”
Yes, because her work is so incredibly poor that the casting couch is the only possible explanation. Get a clue.
She’s working because her work is brilliant, and not only technically, but is a big box office draw on top of it.
For the points of this thread, while I think Jodie does count in the “inching out” category, I give her credit for living her life in the public eye and simply refusing to answer any personal questions of any kind. She’s famous for it. If it isn’t on her resume, she isn’t going to discuss it.
And the ONLY reason she gets away with it is that her work speaks for itself and she doesn’t need to feed the publicity machine to continue working.
The people who I don’t have much respect for are the ones who are coy and try to work the system, welcoming the spotlight on their personal lives for publicity purposes, but then trying to parse the answers to look straight without actually lying.
I absolutely support their right to make those choices, but I also demand the right not to think well of them for doing so, especially as the world changes more and more. And to recognize that the choices to be publicly coy really do affect the lives of other people, for the worse.
Ailurophile: “He wants to pretend that he’s single, and do a little fishin’ off the company pier. Or he wants to give the impression that yes, he’s married, but very unhappily, and is on the make.”
Well, you’re right about one thing: that is pretty cynical. I wonder if any of my colleagues are making similarly baseless judgments on my lack of exhibitionism regarding my family life and my unwillingness to spend working hours chatting about it. I’m sure at least one of them must be that presumptuous, and I’d love to know. It’s generally worth the effort to avoid folks with nothing better to do than cast imaginary aspersions on private and introverted people.
Peter OGRD: “Anyone who wears a wedding ring is publicly stating that they are in a relationship. Any straight person wearing a wedding ring who things that they “don’t discuss their private life” needs to get a clue.
And yes, some gay people wear wedding / commitment rings, but that doesn’t change the statement being made. Given the percentages, a wedding ring is still seen by everyone as a statement of a heterosexual relationship unless otherwise clarified.”
Perhaps any person equating a wedding ring with a statement aimed at the general public needs to get a clue and understand that, sometimes, people do things for themselves, not to make “statements” that might need to be “clarified.” Sure, I suppose that anyone nosy enough to scan my fingers for a ring at work might come to their own heteronormative assumptions, but that sort of person will probably come to their own assumptions regardless of anything I could say. My wedding ring isn’t a cashier’s nametag that says “Ask me about my marriage.” It’s a personal reminder of one of my life’s best days, not some kind of statement.
I mean, I wish I had my finger so firmly on the pulse of society that I could generalize my own understanding of motivation and communication to “everyone.” Sadly, I guess I’m just stuck with minding my own business.
Pam’s post makes sense, but it’s important not to automatically assume that any gay public figure reluctant to “clarify” their personal life is doing so based on their own fears of others’ opinions.
The fact that you think that your wedding band isn’t a statement of your sexuality is the ultimate indicator of your privilege.
Wow, condescend much?
What I tend to think is that until sexuality is merely a private matter (and seriously, while people continue pass laws against us, harass, beat-up and kill us because of our sexualities, they’re NOT just a private matter, they’re public) then I honestly think as a public figure, as a celebrity, you have a certain responsibility because of the celebrity you get.
I’m not going to say they HAVE to come out, but I will admit, I do think less of Jodie Foster because she hasn’t. They’re benefitting from the hard work activists do, and from the celebrities that have come out and forged a path. It doesn’t require a flashing neon sign, but there are a lot of celebrities that recognise their responsibiity, and do it in a quiet and class-filled way.
“My wedding ring isn’t a cashier’s nametag that says “Ask me about my marriage.” It’s a personal reminder of one of my life’s best days, not some kind of statement.”
BS. You are wearing it where everyone can see it, for the purpose of having it be seen.
If your job, your personal safety, or any of a million other things depended in large part on nobody even seriously considering that you might be married, tell us, would you still wear the ring in public, purely because it reminded you of a special moment?
We aren’t talking, as you so blithely condescend, about being forced to engage in hours of personal conversation at work. We are talking about the fear of being discovered by your coworkers. A family photo does not mean to a straight person that they are forced to do anything other than occasionally say, “That’s my family” - if anyone even asks. Someone with a wedding ring and an opposite-sex photo on the desk may well never be asked. Put out a same-sex photo, people will talk.
Try it. Take off your wedding ring and put a photo of your sister on your desk. Then refuse to answer any personal questions. But of course, nobody would make any assumptions.
Bah.
Simply put: Queer celebrities need to represent!!!
Sarah: “The fact that you think that your wedding band isn’t a statement of your sexuality is the ultimate indicator of your privilege.”
The fact that you presume to define anybody else’s preferences in the limited terms of statements that fit one narrative is the ultimate indicator of your arrogance.
“Wow, condescend much?”
Not really. I don’t see myself telling other people that my way of thinking about professional behavior is the right one, for example, or telling them that I understand their motivations better than they do. Plenty of folks like to wave around their family status like some sort of totem, and that’s their business. My distaste for that behavior is aesthetic, not moral.
Peter, OGRD: “BS. You are wearing it where everyone can see it, for the purpose of having it be seen.”
Ditto my above comment to Sarah - there’s nothing more narcissistic than assuming you know other people’s purposes better than they do and correcting them when they tell you otherwise.
“If your job, your personal safety, or any of a million other things depended in large part on nobody even seriously considering that you might be married, tell us, would you still wear the ring in public, purely because it reminded you of a special moment?”
Me personally? I would live somewhere and work in a field where that wasn’t an issue, like perhaps the entertainment industry in Los Angeles. (Oddly enough, I already live somewhere where that isn’t an issue.)
“Try it. Take off your wedding ring and put a photo of your sister on your desk. Then refuse to answer any personal questions. But of course, nobody would make any assumptions.”
I don’t know why I would do any such thing, since I’ve already made it clear that I don’t put pictures of my wife on my desk, and that I’m not favorably disposed to people who want to ask me about my choice of desk fixtures in the middle of my busy days - certainly not enough to entertain their desire for small talk. I already have a ring on my finger to remind me of my wife, not for whatever exhibitionistic reasons you’re assuming (or perhaps projecting, but I can’t be sure, since I’m not awesome enough to explain other people’s intentions for them.) And I think I’ve also made it pretty clear what I think about the sort of folks who do “make assumptions.” Indeed, it’s been a central point in my posts.
My whole point is that it’s wrong to apply one motivation to a group of people, instead of understanding that different people have different motivations. Gay celebs who want to discuss their family lives in public should do so without fear, but it’s nuts to expect people who normally wouldn’t discuss their private lives to do so because of their sexual orientation, and nuttier to assume that media figures can’t fall into that category.
I eagerly await your next explanation of the thought processes of an anonymous commenter. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to tell me which of my other sentiments are BS.
there’s nothing more narcissistic than assuming you know other people’s purposes better than they do and correcting them when they tell you otherwise.
Okay, where did you assume we were telling you what your purposes are/were? I’m sorry, but seriously, again with the privilege.
We’re not telling you what your purposes are, we’re telling you the statement that you’re making. A statement does not have to be purposeful, it doesn’t even have to be conscious.
In fact, the far majority of statements in terms of presentation are culturally socialised and internal, to the point where we don’t think about the symbols we present, particularly if they align with hegmonic norms of expected behaviour and presentation.
But we are ALWAYS presenting symbols (and hence statements of meaning) with everything we say and do. The privilege of not acknowledging that it is such, is the privilege of assuming unmarked hegemony.
I definitely think there’s something to be said for celebrities’ coming out–I do think it can make a big difference in changing public attitudes for the better–while I also agree with the points being made about the unfair burden of requiring individuals to make a public declaration about their sexuality. I’m sure there are gay celebrities living pretty openly gay lives while still calculating how to keep the press on their side in concealing it so they can go on having straight privilege for their public image, and there’s a lot that’s problematic there. But I also think we shouldn’t concentrate too much on the individual celebrity’s role in deciding what’s problematic about it–the press, for example, is playing a huge role, and so are homophobes in the public. If celebrities choose to keep as much of their private life out of public as possible but answer questions or otherwise reveal their orientation (for example, by talking about a significant other) when the press actually bothers to ask them (while getting a celebrity to come out can be juicy, it may not always sell as well long-term as promoting a heteronormative image)–I think they should be admired, whether gay or straight, for being able to walk a tricky line between being themselves in their public image and protecting their true selves for their real lives with people they know.
And one thing I haven’t seen mentioned about the burden of coming out for celebrities is that it doesn’t necessarily just involved declaring orientation. I’m sure there are a lot of celebrities who are varying degrees of bisexual. So, sure, among people in the know, these celebrities are known for having same-sex relationships at times. But I think they would rightly resist coming out as gay when the opposite-sex relationships they have had could also be just as important, or more important, to them. And, certainly, a person could then decide to come out as bisexual. But while being bi is a fine thing to be–I identify as bi–I also think it’s fair for people to not really identify with the label, to, for example, simply feel that they are more gay or more straight at various times in their lives. And coming out that way, saying, “Well, sometimes I’m gay, sometimes I’m straight,” or even saying, “I’m bi” *would* open up the person to a whole lot of questions from reporters and other folks who’d want to pin down the celebrity to one identity or another: what is it, straight or gay? You have to be one! And I think for a person to clarify what they really are, what label really makes the most sense for them personally, they do have to start talking about their personal sexual behavior and preferences, not just their sexual orientation. I don’t blame people at all for wanting to keep those things more private.
Straight people never have to make an announcement because of heteronormativity. Although, as others have pointed out, there are countless “announcements” in everyday straight life that we take for granted. I have photos of my girlfriend on my desk (and even with that, I have to “announce” that we don’t believe in marriage and have been committedly been living in sin for the last sixteen years), I can bring her to staff parties, I can memtion that we saw a movie or are fixing up our house, and a hundred other things without having to worry about repercussions. A gay person never gets to do that.
In our climate, “normal”, trivial, personal details get treated as political statements if they come from a gay person. It’s unfortunate, and maybe you are talking about a post-gay rights world where equality has been achieved, but right now, it’s hard to say people are publically closeted because it’s “nobody’s business” when the option of being out still can’t be freely embraced. I can’t think of a single straight actor or actress who carefully hides their spouse, or refuses to answer any questions about their private life. It almost seems as if “I don’t talk about who I date”, or “It’s nobody’s business” is taken as code for “I’m in the closet”.
We’ll never get to a world without heteronormativity until being publically gay is a non-issue, and we won’t get to that stage until there are plenty of openly gay people.
That just drives me nuts! To say “Me and {same-sex partner} went camping last weekend” is somehow reacted to with “OMG why can’t you keep your sex life private?”.
Yet “We’re trying to have a baby” said by a het married person, which clearly tells me that you are having lots of unprotected sex with your spouse, is a perfectly acceptable thing to say in public. …sigh…
And I guess the issue for me with celebrities is whether they project an air of being ashamed of their gayness, by acting like a questioner is out of line if it’s brought up, or bringing people other than one’s partner to an event if cameras will be there, etc. Projecting shame is clearly not just unhelpful, but rather is actually damaging to the public perception of gay people.
Sarah: “Okay, where did you assume we were telling you what your purposes are/were?”
“We?” I was addressing Peter with the comment that you’ve quoted, when he said: “You are wearing it where everyone can see it, for the purpose of having it be seen.”
“we’re telling you the statement that you’re making.”
And with such certainty! I wish I had so much confidence in my interpretive framework of human behavior and understanding, but I’ve given up on trying to analyze all behavior in terms of some arbitrary criteria like “symbols” or “statements,” because it doesn’t seem to actually further understanding, but instead merely applies the grammar of communication where it doesn’t necessarily describe intentions or behaviors.
“But we are ALWAYS presenting symbols (and hence statements of meaning) with everything we say and do.”
If person A perceives my wearing of X as a symbol for Y, it doesn’t mean that X means Y. A’s behavior is one of inferring meaning, and this inference could be empirically flawed, as it is when people look at a wedding ring and apply heteronormative standards.
Correcting that flaw does not require a theory of meaning that constrains the perceived into the terms of statements and symbols, but persuasive argument directed toward the perceiver’s mistake, like pointing out that plenty of gay people live married lives, and that heteronormative assumptions are not a good guide to human behavior.
Reading anything more certain into another’s wearing a ring than “That person wears a ring” or “I feel that ring means X” or “Other people seem to feel that ring means Y” is to make the same mistake as looking at the ring and thinking “That person must be in a het marriage.” I thought that went out the window from which Wittgenstein threw Freud and the like. It doesn’t accomplish anything more than a reframing of the terms of discussion, one which, in this case, attributes culpability to the perceived for the perceiver’s own mistakes.
If you want to do something about people’s heteronormative assumptions toward family photos and wedding rings, I’d suggest something more productive than trying to explain to people who agree with your goal how their activities fit into your understanding.
I’ve wandered a bit off my original point in posting, which was to highlight the fact that some people have very private personalities, and that expecting gay media figures to act otherwise does a disservice to the diversity of those figures’ individuality. I don’t comment much, but Pam’s reply to the commenter in question made the same mistake as a heteronormative perceiver of wedding rings, which is to assume a normal standard of behavior. I can see persuasively arguing to a gay media figure that they have a responsibility to the gay community at large, but I take issue with the assumption that anyone not living up to that responsibility is doing so out of fear, as opposed to personal inclination.
Reading over some these comments again I am really surprised by the ignorance displayed here. As Peter and Sarahin Chicago have said, many folks here are making a display of their privilege and showing a lack of sensitivity to the complexities of being gay.
It’s not at all what I have come to expect from Pandagon.
I understand the larger point, but I have to agree with Hawise about Jodie Foster — if someone tried to shoot a president and permanently disabled a man to try and get your attention, you’d clamp down on your private life, too. Especially since many of the press reports at the time blamed Foster for the shooting, since she took the role that Hinckley became obsessed with. Once that happens, I think you’d tell the press to fuck off, too.
I think that some sympathy should also be extended to people in their 40s or 50s who may have family members who don’t want them to come out. Nathan Lane didn’t officially come out until after his mother’s death because she was so against the idea. I don’t think we should be insist on ruining people’s relationships with their families in the service of openness. As time goes on, those situations will happen less and less.
However, people who make any kind of anti-gay statements in public while being gay privately? Absolutely valid outing targets.
“Reading over some these comments again I am really surprised by the ignorance displayed here. As Peter and Sarahin Chicago have said, many folks here are making a display of their privilege and showing a lack of sensitivity to the complexities of being gay.”
Interesting. I’d suggest that the people showing a lack of sensitivity, probably unintentionally, are those expecting all gay people to act or feel a certain way regardless of their own personality - probably the most complex issue anyone deals with - but what do I know: I’m obviously too busy
explaining why I disagree with part of Pam’s suggested approach to overcoming heteronormativityrubbing my privilege in everyone’s face to consider the same weighty issues that command your attention.“It’s not at all what I have come to expect from Pandagon.”
What, a large community of people who agree on goals while disagreeing about methods?
I’m sure you can find a blog with more ideological conformity if you Google hard enough. It’ll probably have less comments, but at least you won’t have to worry about people being so insensitive as to point out the use of sweeping generalizations with which you happen to agree.
When I hear straight people denying they have any privilege, and that everyone can just “keep things to themselves”, it seems strikingly similar to white people who maintain they don’t really have any privilege, they didn’t mean anything racist by that comment so therefore it isn’t racist (because their intention is what defines how words/symbols/etc should be interpreted, not history or how things have commonly been perceived by the world at large) and why can’t we just forget about race and everyone can all get along (i.e., ‘why can’t everyone just act white’).
It is the privilege of the dominant group to not have to recognize their privilege or think about the statements they’re making as they go about their everyday privileged lives. Unfortunately, those not in that group have to recognize it and navigate it every single day.
Now, as for celebrities, I think an issue here is what we mean by saying someone is “required” to be out. “Required” for what? To do their job? no. For us to like their movies/tv shows/etc? no. To be not considered evil? no. But to be a active force for good in the world and help others not in your fortunate position? yes.
Sunburnt,
Heteronormativity or no, a wedding ring signals straight privelege by the mere fact that, outside of Massachusetts, gay people can’t get married in America.
I’m not trying to say that famous gay people should be forced to come out, or that they aren’t allowed private space. I’m just asking, when do you ever see straight celebrities hiding their social lives with such care? Are there no famous straight people who value their privacy the way semi-out gay people do? Why do you think that is?
I am just guessing here, Sunburnt, but I suspect that you are “out” at work, even if you don’t have a picture of your wife on your desk. I assume that you either have her, or any kids you might have, covered by your insurance plan, or listed as your contact person for an emergency, or have somewhere checked “married” on some form or other.
In short, even if you have never once mentioned her in conversation, attended a company event with her, taken time off work to be with her, the information is publicly available.
Regardless of your personal motivation for wearing a wedding ring, the fact is that you are sufficiently unconcerned about the consequences of doing so that you consider it either a non-issue, or sufficiently neutral that you have the luxury of considering it meaningless to anyone else.
Sunburnt,
What I have come to expect from Pandagon is a sensitivity to issues regarding gender and sexuality. I don’t expect conformity or total agreement but I also don’t expect privileged jerks telling me about the realities of my minority experience.
Ms Foster really isn’t all that. I actually think the kid from the Potter series has more talent and promise. Technically better and with far greater range.
Never understood the “appeal” of Ms Foster until her casting couch became obvious to anybody even remotely connected to the biz. Oh, now it makes sense.
Here in whitest Dumbf**kistan, there are many who are out and we really don’t care. For a performer to hide in the closet is curious. Do we think less of them or is there another reason?
But we are ALWAYS presenting symbols (and hence statements of meaning) with everything we say and do. The privilege of not acknowledging that it is such, is the privilege of assuming unmarked hegemony.
Or deliberate culture-jamming. Freddy Mercury springs to mind.
Straight people never have to make an announcement because of heteronormativity. Although, as others have pointed out, there are countless “announcements” in everyday straight life that we take for granted. I have photos of my girlfriend on my desk (and even with that, I have to “announce” that we don’t believe in marriage and have been committedly been living in sin for the last sixteen years), I can bring her to staff parties, I can memtion that we saw a movie or are fixing up our house, and a hundred other things without having to worry about repercussions. A gay person never gets to do that.
Umm…..
Actually, I have a co-worker who invited some of our shared coworkers to her wedding. She and her wife are open, but also pretty private. She is perfectly free to talk with her coworkers who are friends and not to talk to coworkers who are not about that. She does have pictures of her wife, and nieces, and sister. No one assumes, but most of us also have better things to do than ask her for details that are none of our business nor does aanyone freak out when she meantions that they went out or did this or that.
Yes, I do live in MA. I knew I had a pretty open work place. So, never? Not actually true. Rarely; I certainly give you that.
Helen,
Granted, to some degree. I’d still say “never”, considering the amount of legal, instituionalized discrimination that still exists in this country (even in the more accepting areas).
“I am just guessing here, Sunburnt, but I suspect that you are “out” at work, even if you don’t have a picture of your wife on your desk. I assume that you either have her, or any kids you might have, covered by your insurance plan, or listed as your contact person for an emergency, or have somewhere checked “married” on some form or other.
In short, even if you have never once mentioned her in conversation, attended a company event with her, taken time off work to be with her, the information is publicly available.”
Actually, I believe this information is supposed to be kept private and “need to know” for everyone. Many places or companies, those items can be gained for same-sex partners and families, not just Het ones.
I agree that Sunburnt is unaware how obvious his het relationship is to others, with them assuming the cues mean what they think they mean; they don’t have to mean what those others assume. I had a lesbian friend who wore a wedding ring after her commitment ceremony; in Idaho twenty years ago. That hardly meant she was trying to pass. He has a point about some people being private; some keeping work and non-work lives seperate, etc.
I would say you are right in terms of never being able to not think about it. I’ve been out for years, at jobs and elsewhere, without any major negative consequence. But still, every time something comes up with someone new (e.g., simple small talk, like “so, do you have anything fun planned for this weekend?”), your brain goes through this fast-n-furious computation of everything you know about this person and the place you are in, and the likely consequences of avoiding the question vs. dodging pronouns vs. making your orientation clear in your answer.
meant to add there: It really does get tiring at times, all that extra cognitive work.
Calliopejane,
That’s what I was aiming at, but you said it a lot better. Thanks.
calliopejane: “I hear straight people denying they have any privilege”
Where? Not here, I hope. You’d really have to be reading way too much into these comments to find that.
“their intention is what defines how words/symbols/etc should be interpreted, not history or how things have commonly been perceived by the world at large”
Oh, I get it - the latter is the REAL way we should all interpret experience and the former is FALSE. I’m interested and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, since I don’t really have the same certainty either way in the face of myriad human behaviors.
Adamn: “I also don’t expect privileged jerks telling me about the realities of my minority experience.”
That’s interesting, because I don’t expect people sensitive to the experience of being a minority to turn around and generalize their own experience to other members of that minority. It’s a big world, though, so I guess I should just expect to be surprised more often.
Helen H: “I agree that Sunburnt is unaware how obvious his het relationship is to others”
I’m aware that most people will see my ring and assume I’m married to a woman. My whole point was that it’s a mistake on their part to think that what seems obvious to them (only heteros wear wedding rings) is necessarily the case. That’s what happens when people pretend they can fix a symbolic meaning to a behavior, I suppose.
—
Anyway, it’s been fun being obliquely compared to a racist based on someone’s misreading of my comments and their preferred theory of meaning, being called a jerk for wondering how it’s insensitive to expect people to consider others as individual personalities instead of extensions of their own experience, and generally serving as a target upon which people can take out the stresses of their own lives by imagining that I’m addressing their personal situation by discussing celebrities.
Next time I agree with the main point of a conversation - that gay celebs who want to be open shouldn’t have to put up with bigotry when they do so - I’ll be sure to agree with all the details as well, like the assumption that all gay celebs have the same motivations for being semi-closeted. It’s pretty upsetting to be called names and have assumptions made about me by folks who are ostensibly on the same side as myself, so I’ll just stick to the topics where we can all agree.
Hey, how about that Washington Post? Misogynist fuckers.
I agree with AdamN: I’m quite surprised by the amount of straight privilege floating around in this thread. I’m out in my social and working life, out to my siblings and in (or “don’t ask, don’t tell) to my parents and to people who might tell my parents. I don’t like the idea of compelling anyone to come out, but do agree with the thrust of the article that we need more gay role models and that queer celebrities are in a very good position to kick down some barriers for general acceptance in public. One of the reasons I feel it’s important that I not closet myself at work etc. is because I’m femme looking and therefore can easily “pass” as straight if I want to. And I think it’s important to try and knock away at that stereotype that you can tell a gay person just from looking at them.
Honestly, the ignorance in this thread. I would prefer to keep parts of my private life private, but it is almost impossible. Every time I talk to a new person there’s that moment where you realise that by the direction the conversation is taking, you’re about to come out. Every day, in tiny ways. When someone says “your boyfriend” and you correct them and say “I’m not dating, but it’d be a girlfriend” and there’s either discomfort or surprise or some other reaction that you’d really rather not have to witness/deal with. Because it should be a non-issue. Shit, where I live there is usually only ever one gay bar (currently none but one’s reopening), so the second I mention that I like going clubbing or someone asks me what I’m doing on the weekend, and I say I’m going out on the town, the next question is NEARLY ALWAYS “where do you like to go?” and, again, I’m outing myself to that person as soon as I name the bar and you get the look or the discomfort or some other indication that you were assumed to be hetero up till that point.
Geez, some of you are oblivious.
Also, calliopejane, you said it really well with “It really does get tiring at times, all that extra cognitive work.” It’s fucking exhausting sometimes, running all the possible outcomes of a conversation in your head, assessing your safety level etc.
I really fail to see the difference between “My wedding ring on my finger means only what I say it does and not what history and collective society have overwhelmingly interpreted it as” and “My noose hanging in my office means only what I say it does and not what history and collective society have overwhelmingly interpreted it as”.
But I guess I’m just ignorant, as you said.
“Oh, I get it - the latter is the REAL way we should all interpret experience and the former is FALSE. ”
Umm… you do realize that you’ve decided to go on record disputing the fact that wearing a wedding ring signals to people you are married.
As far as bigotry goes, you’ve evidenced a very mild form of it so far, but you are digging it deeper and deeper. You’re straight, and you haven’t questioned (at least certain aspects of) heteronormativity.
People whose experience is different has said that their experience is different.
You’re the one telling us how our experience works - and I can assure you that unless you are an incredibly rare straight person, we have a better idea what it is like to be gay, and, I suspect, a much higher awareness of all the signals that straight people send out into the world without really thinking about it. We have to, because we’ve had to learn to read them, question them, and often fake them - but always pay attention to them, even when doing so is tiresome.
And maybe, just maybe, what we say is our experience of the overwhelmingly straight world around us doesn’t match exactly with the way you individually behave. So what? We’re skeptical for a reason, but even if you are some deeply unusual person, the rest of the straight people around you aren’t, and they do behave the way we’ve observed.
You’ve blown a real opportunity to learn something. Instead, you’re defending your ignorance, and coming across more and more like a bigot. I suspect you aren’t really. Too bad you’re acting like one.
Oops! I mis-read your comments Sunburnt and ended up with the mistaken perception that you were a straight person being condescending and pompous with little empathy towards those of us with a minority experience. However it appears you are instead a gay person being condescending and pompous with little empathy towards those who share a minority experience with you and that kinda makes it worse.
Oh, all right:
calliopejane: “I guess I’m just ignorant, as you said.”
Really? Where did I say that? Perhaps you could point it out.
“I really fail to see the difference between “My wedding ring on my finger means only what I say it does and not what history and collective society have overwhelmingly interpreted it as” and “My noose hanging in my office means only what I say it does and not what history and collective society have overwhelmingly interpreted it as.”
Your reading your own words into my post again - I stated that I’m not confident to come down on EITHER as a theory of meaning, certainly not enough to tell people that I understand the REAL meaning of their actions like a few folks here. I don’t know where you get this “only” that you slipped into the above quote.
AdamN: No, read them again. I’m a married het. So I guess you’ve misread them twice in trying to be sarcastic. I won’t bother to argue with your other conclusions, though, since you’ve obviously decided that my disagreement over the obligations of gay celebrities says something about my personal character in general.
Peter OGRD: “You’re the one telling us how our experience works”
I’m telling you how my experience works, and suggesting that other people may be just as private or more so regardless of their orientation. You’re the one - not the only one - here who seems to think that I’m stating how gay people feel, rather than suggesting how SOME gay people who nobody here knows personally MIGHT feel.
“you do realize that you’ve decided to go on record disputing the fact that wearing a wedding ring signals to people you are married.”
I’ve gone on record disputing your initial assertion that this is purposive in my case, and disputing the assertion that the meaning of any action is necessarily symbolic. I did this while pointing out that anyone making the assumption that I’m married to a woman based on my ring is wrong to make that assumption.
“You’ve blown a real opportunity to learn something.”
Yeah, because I must not have any close personal relationships with gay people who share their experiences with me, right? Too bad that a thread on Pandagon was my only opportunity to explore the gay experience in America.
—
I mean, this whole thing has been pretty ridiculous:
Pam: “‘Normal’ (straight) people do this.”
Me: Not all of them.
Chorus: How dare you fail to acknowledge that your behavior is a slap in the face to us all!
Anyway, good night, and flame away.
Sunburnt up above at comment 45 you said:
“That’s interesting, because I don’t expect people sensitive to the experience of being a minority to turn around and generalize their own experience to other members of that minority.”
This reads like you were stating that I was generalizing to you as a member of our shared minority group and that was the source of my confusion. But anyways…
My disagreements with you are related to some of the comments related to work place/wedding ring discussion and not so much the celebrity one.
As some one who has faced workplace discrimination and discomfort of various different degrees because of my sexual orientation, your comments come across as ignorant and insensitive.
Here’s a clue: If almost all the gay folks here are saying that your comments reveal a disrespectful tone and lack of understanding of the issues then maybe you really don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and a being a presumptuous ass.
AdamN: “Here’s a clue: If almost all the gay folks here are saying that your comments reveal a disrespectful tone and lack of understanding of the issues then maybe you really don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and a being a presumptuous ass.”
Here’s a clue for you: If you think that my life is so removed from the experiences of “gay folks” that I would be willing to generalize the opinions of half a dozen blog commenters as somehow representative of the gay experience in America, or if you are narcissistic enough to do so with your sentiments, then maybe you really don’t know what you are talking about and are being a presumptuous ass.
Seriously, do you think this is the first time I’ve had this conversation? Like I never discuss these issues in an intimate group that includes gay people when I’m not wasting a day off on the Internet? Nah, I read feminist political blogs in my spare time just to piss you off.
Here’s a free bonus clue: If you think the only reason people disagree with you is because they don’t understand the real, personal truths of your experience, then maybe you should explore religion.
Oh, and in case you missed my sarcasm, I’m saying stop acting like a fundie. Please.
Note to self. Stop feeding the trolls.
Yeah, that’s it, Peter. I was trolling when I initially posted “It’s a great and positive thing when gay celebrities are forthcoming about their lives in the media, if they enjoy discussing the personal sphere - after all, a huge market certainly exists for what is essentially small talk, and heteronormativity is distressing no matter where it’s found[…]My whole point is that it’s wrong to apply one motivation to a group of people [gay media figures], instead of understanding that different people have different motivations. Gay celebs who want to discuss their family lives in public should do so without fear”
See, I knew all along that a handful of the people here would interpret my suggestion that maybe some other folks are as introverted as myself into an all-out attack on the validity of their personal experience, and would take a philosophical difference about the role of the perceiver vs. the role of the symbol as proof of bigotry and prejudice. It’s a very subtle form of trolling, but I guess nothing gets by you.
Here’s a clue for you, now: Just because another person’s comments upset you doesn’t mean they’re trolling. It might just mean you disagree, or it might mean they’re not clear, which could be their fault or your own, or both.
Sunburnt,
I really don’t think you get it. I am not saying that all of us here who find your remarks disrespectful are a complete and total representation of the gay community. You keep harping on that but I never said that or meant to imply that.
Still you have taken a disrespectful and condescending attitude to people here who have very real personal minority experiences in these matters. Its awesome that you have had intimate conversations with other gay people who may have expressed different views but you are talking to gay people on this board right here and now. If you were more sensitive, you would taken our reaction and experience into account. Your other conversations with gay friends does not negate what we are saying here and make your comments any less insensitive and ignorant. Frankly you resorting to that argument comes across a little like the “some of my best friends are black” bullshit.
I really don’t think you are a troll but in this discussion you have certainly acted like one and maybe its time to take Peter’s advice and stop feeding you.
“Here’s a free bonus clue: If you think the only reason people disagree with you is because they don’t understand the real, personal truths of your experience, then maybe you should explore religion. ”
I certainly don’t think this at all. However I do think that people making presumptions about the affairs and lives of other identities removed from them and showing a lack of empathy when relating to people of those identities, is a source of both soft and hard bigotry, esp. when these people are coming from a privileged position.
I am sure that for most purposes you are an ally, Sunburnt. However your lack of empathy and presumptions are disheartening and insulting. In my opinion, having a sense of empathy is one of most important distinctions that separate those of us on the left from the Fundies that you compared me to. For instance, I would never presume to understand the intricate nature of racial discrimination on any level of authority. Rather I would take various different accounts of that experience from those who were subjected to it to begin to grasp an understanding of it.
“See, I knew all along that a handful of the people here would interpret my suggestion that maybe some other folks are as introverted as myself into an all-out attack on the validity of their personal experience”
Which raises the question of why you posted in the first place.
But you see, nobody interpreted your suggestion that way. In fact, it is never a suggestion you made. It might be what you were thinking, but it isn’t what you said - nor have you paid any attention to the answers you actually got.
The point was that it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether you are introverted or not, whether you yodel the details of your relationship to everyone on the street or never explicitly mention it.
Please, all annoyance aside, try to listen to the point:
The point is not that you do or do not choose to discuss your relationship. The point is that you do not actively deny it or try to dance around even the suggestion that you HAVE a relationship.
If someone from work sees you at a store or restaurant and then asks you who it was they saw you with, would you feel the need to say “Oh, just a friend” or “I don’t discuss my personal life at work” or would you simply say “That was my wife” and end the conversation?
The point is Not. In. The. Slightest. About. How. Much. You. Share. The point is the freedom you feel to make that choice based only on your personal preferences, not on the possible consequences of admitting to the relationship.
It’s a big difference. It is a critical difference. It is the entire point of the conversation, and nothing you have written has in the least indicated that you even see the point. In short, you are behaving as if the only consideration for anyone is their personal preference on how much to share. In fact, you are arguing that because you don’t share the experience, it doesn’t even exist - not even for people who are not like you.
We get that it isn’t part of your experience. Duh. That is pretty much the whole point of privilege. You don’t have to be conscious of it in your life at all. And nobody is expecting you to suddenly start applying it to your own life. But it’s clear you aren’t writing as though you are even open to the concept that something that doesn’t apply to you might be a critical or defining reality in someone else’s life.
THAT’S the insensitivity we’re seeing, and what we are reacting to. Not that your introversion is an attack. It is your denial of our experience.
OK, here’s the frustrating thing:
“I do think that people making presumptions about the affairs and lives of other identities removed from them and showing a lack of empathy when relating to people of those identities, is a source of both soft and hard bigotry, esp. when these people are coming from a privileged position.”
That’s true, except that I wasn’t making any presumptions about the gay experience - indeed, I was posting because I thought Pam was doing just that, and I’ve certainly never heard anyone argue that being a member of a minority give anyone the right to generalize about the behavior of the majority, or speak with certainty about the motives of other members of that minority - especially when their lives are so different from our own, as with the celebs under discussion. The only personal experience I discussed was my own, suggesting that a particular feature of my experience (introversion and work/life separation) might apply to some of the gay celebs under discussion.
Now, I can’t help but wonder if the part to which you’re referring is the argument over the symbolism of the wedding ring. A handful of people here wanted to tell me what that means as a symbol using the language of objective truth, and I’m sorry, but I think that reducing everything to cultural symbols is no more valid than using intent to determine meaning, and counterproductive - you can’t really argue with someone’s assumed meaning for a symbol, but since meaning is a function of the perceiver, you can argue for a more accurate perception on empirical grounds.
But this isn’t an argument with the character of someone else’s experience, their “affairs and lives” - it’s a philosophical disagreement about the best language to talk about those experiences when the overarching goal is to overcome cultural heteronormativity. I believe that telling people “When you do this, it means this” (Or, in Peter’s formulation, “You do this for this reason,” which overreaches further) is not as effective as “When you assume this, you ignore this” (where “this” can be referred to empirically.)
I am sensitive to hurting or offending others and am normally very apologetic when I do so intentionally or otherwise. An example of a situation where I find myself disinclined to apologize is one where people’s response to offense is presuming to:
-characterize their perceptions as my “purposes,”
-compare me to a racist based on their misquoting of my position,
-call me a jerk after admittedly misreading my comments twice,
-accuse me of speaking as a false authority, about their experiences as a minority, when I’ve done nothing of the sort.
If your definition of empathy includes “willingness to apologize to rude people for the offense they take at things you haven’t said,” then I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Peter: “Which raises the question of why you posted in the first place.”
I answered that, like, at least three times so far. Here it is again: because I think that it is wrong to claim that gay celebrities MUST be semi-closeted out of the fear of discovery, since that ignores the complex issue of personality.
None of this in any way denies the validity of the point you’ve repeated (and with which I’ve agreed at least once):
“You do or do not choose to discuss your relationship. The point is that you do not actively deny it or try to dance around even the suggestion that you HAVE a relationship.
If someone from work sees you at a store or restaurant and then asks you who it was they saw you with, would you feel the need to say “Oh, just a friend” or “I don’t discuss my personal life at work” or would you simply say “That was my wife” and end the conversation?”
The opposite situation certainly applies to the lives of MOST gay people, but implying that EVERY gay person is in that situation is nonsense, ESPECIALLY with reference to people living and working in the entertainment industry. You seem to think that this statement implies that it’s nonsense to say that this situation applies to ANY gay people, despite the fact that I’m explicitly NOT addressing the lives of MOST gay people.
You say “you aren’t writing as though you are even open to the concept that something that doesn’t apply to you might be a critical or defining reality in someone else’s life.” That’s my entire argument with your stance: you’re writing as though you assume that a critical or defining reality in your life must apply to anyone who shares an aspect of your identity related to that reality.
But if you insist on taking my assertion that perhaps your experience isn’t universal among gay people, and that nobody has the standing to generalize their own experience in that manner, as a personal attack on your experience…well, I’m pessimistic about the possibility of meaningful communication, and I apologize for wasting your time.
“characterize their perceptions as my “purposes,”
-compare me to a racist based on their misquoting of my position,
-call me a jerk after admittedly misreading my comments twice,
-accuse me of speaking as a false authority, about their experiences as a minority, when I’ve done nothing of the sort.”
I misinterpreted your language at one comment and I explained why. The language you used at that point came across as misleading for the reasons I explained.
As for accusing you of speaking on false authority, I think that is one the main reasons people on this discussion have had issues with you. You may not have intended to come across that way but it sure did.
My intention was not to compare you to a racist but compare the argument you were using to a loose defense used by racists. Sorry if I misinterpreted you but your argument did come across that way to me.
As for being a jerk, you were the one who escalated this conversation in this manner. Several people have pointed your condescending and pompous tone here. As for me, I made a comment expressing my surprise at the lack of sensitivity to GLBT issues on the comments on this post, something other gay people have noted, and you totally jumped on me, rudely and excessively. Thats not going to make someone argue civilly with you.
OMG OMG! I’ve always loved Jodie Foster since I was little, and I had no idea.
When I was growing up, all my lesbian role models were unfortunately fictional, and not even canon; Ivy and Harley in Batman: TAS(1992)….and Buffy/Faith. The Willow/Tara thing was sweet though.
Sir Ian McKellen did his coming out in an aired debate over gay rights, when the right wing nut kept referring to homosexuals as ‘them’, he came out and said that well, he was one of /them/.
from Peter, High Lord of rubber ducks (yes? did i get it right?)
he says to me “If someone told you that they were engaged, would your answer be “I don’t care who you sleep with?” If not, then fucking stop doing that to gay people.”
well, NO, i dont say that when people get ENGAGED. gay or straight. but i DO tell people, all of the time, that i don’t care WHO they sleep with. Renee trys to tell me about her new girl, i tell her i don’t care who she sleeps with. if they develope into a relationship, call me. alex has a new girl, ditto. jason has a new boy, ditto.
(actually, jason just got engaged, and i am supposed to play the bachelor party. i thnk because in Cbus its easier for women to get reservations at male strip clubs than it is for men…)
because the point of my post, which i appologize for not making clearer, is that we SHOULD NOT, as an entire freaking world, care who is doing what as long as no one is hurt. period. and i don’t get what the damned big deal is. so my sister is a lesbian; great, she found this nifty bar with the best kareoke i’ve ever been to. and made me cry this last xmas with some nostalgia pics no one got but us.
so, i don’t get it. i think i may be one of those people that CAN’T get it.
(i stopped reading at Peters post to me; my meds are kicking and i must sleeps)
Married, het, and weighing in to say that I have a friend whose boss thinks being gay is a sin, and we’re all pretty sure that being out has cost her, career wise, but it’s impossible to quantify. Hopefully she’s changing some minds, but even so it’s a personal sacrifice.
I’m not going to judge anyone for choosing not to make that sacrifice. It’s their life, and it’s their call.
Personally, were I famous and gay, I’d probably end up taking the Neil Patrick Harris route. He never hid anything and never denied anything. He just lived his life.
I’m looking forward to a time when a tabloid announcement that “X is gay!” is greeted with crickets.