Category Archives: Gender and Sexuality

Gender and Sexuality

Yes, all bullying is bad, but Matt Barber is being disingenuous

4 Comments
Bullying on IRFE in March 5, 2007, the first c...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, I ran across a Truth Wins Out blog post by Evan Hurst.  Evan dissected an interview between Peter LaBarbera (of the disingenously named Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) and Matt Barber (of Liberty Counsel).  Both men are professional (and by that term, I only mean that they get paid for those efforts) anti-gay activists.  Matt was talking about the recent flack he’s been (justifiably) taking for claiming that gay kids commit suicide because they know deep down that being gay is a sin.  During that interview, Matt made the following infuriating comment.

They promote these propagandist ‘LGBT’ laws to the exclusion and detriment of other classes of kids who are perhaps even more frequently bullied and in larger numbers: Overweight kids and racial minorities come to mind.

This is infuriating to hear, because the statement is nothing more than a diversionary tactic by s9omeone who doesn’t care about anti-gay bullying.  It’s not only disingenuous, it demonstrates that they don’t really care about anyone who gets bullied.  Want proof?  What “all-inclusive bullying protections” have Matt Barber and company actually supported?  What “all-inclusive” legislation have they pushed any level of government representative to introduce, sponsor, or support?  Any?  Any at all?

And truth be told, Matt is ignoring the institutional church’s and many religious organizations’ complicity in anti-gay bullying, complicity that encourages and condones (if not explicitly, then implicitly) in ways that the bullying of overweight kids or racial minorities aren’t.

I know of know major Christian denomination who has an official doctrinal stance that states that overweight people or racial minorities are inherently disordered.  I know of no religious organizations that have been formed specifically for the purpose of “fighting the evil overweight agenda.”  I have yet to hear an entire sermon preached on the evils of overeating or being black.  I have not ministers, religious organizations, or political organizations make a concentrated campaign to spread defamatory and damaging propaganda about overweight people, and no one outside of organizations who attack racial minorities would even consider remaining silent when confronted by those organization’s tactics.

No, this kind of institutionalized dehumanization and vilification is currently reserved solely for QUILTBAG individuals, and it’s the kind of thing that not only condones anti-gay (and anti-QUILTBAG)  bullying, but implicitly (if not explicitly) encourages it.  And that’s the painful truth that people like Matt Barber are trying to obscure when they pay lip service to the truth that all bullying should be stopped.  They’re trying to shift attention back to the cases of bullying they can fully get behind so that no one notices their silence regarding the bullying they’re okay with.

Related articles
Gender and Sexuality, Memories

The Path Left Behind

4 Comments
Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...

Image via Wikipedia

I came out to myself and my best friend at the time on Monday, 1 April 1996.  Today, 1 April 2011 marks the fifteenth anniversary of that event.  In honor of that, I’ve decided to do a series of posts on the topic.  This is the second one.


As I said in my previous post, the night I came out to Merion in that little alcove was the beginning of a new journey to self-acceptance and personal discovery.  However, the start of that journey meant the end of a different, darker journey.  The journey that ended that night, the journey towards “freedom from unwanted same-sex attractions,” was a painful and self-destructive one and one I’m glad I left behind.  And yet, this anniversary would not be complete without talking about it at least a little.
Truth be told, I can’t cover that journey — which lasted for roughly eight years — in a single blog post.  I hope to restart A Journey to Queerdom soon, and I will explore it more fully there.  For this post, I hope to tell just enough to capture a glimpse of the emotional chaos that overshadowed me as I came to that fateful April Fool’s Day night.
At the end of my sophomore year in college, I had finally admitted that my feelings for other guys was more than “just a phase.”  It was a very real part of my psychological makeup and it was there to stay unless I took some drastic measures.  So I started trying to turn myself straight.  Granted, I didn’t go to any sort of therapy or ex-gay ministry — fortunately, I wouldn’t have known where to find such help in Selinsgrove of the surrounding area.  So instead, I simply tried to go through the process of praying for healing on my own and asking friends I could trust to also pray for me.*
Asking for friends’ help actually created a cycle of increasing frustration.  I would admit my “struggle” to each of them separately — a frightening prospect in itself each time, as I was never sure how they might react to the experience and there’s a lot of shame in admitting you like members of your own sex in evangelical and fundamentalist circles, even if you make it clear that you don’t want them.  They’d pray with me and for me, and I’d feel better.  I’d get an emotional boost and would feel like I could take on the world.
But the emotional high would eventually wear off while the feelings of attraction would persist.  My frustrations and sense of shame over feeling the way I felt would return, often magnified by the sense of added failure that somehow I had lost forfeited the “spiritual help” I had gotten and failed yet again.  So I’d decide that I needed more help, and that meant telling another friend and seeking further support and help.  And there, the cycle would begin all over.
The thing is, dealing with one’s feelings is ultimately something one has to do alone.  No one can feel those feelings for you.  No one can take them away from you.  No one can do anything other than support you through it all, and no one can give that support 24/7.  I found that late at night, laying in my bed, I was left all alone to either face my desire for love and intimacy with another man alone or repress it alone.  It was my burden to carry, and the more I fought it, the heavier that burden got.
One of the things that drove me to the breaking point on Saturday night, 30 March 1996** was the fact that my loneliness was driven home when my closest friends and my biggest supporters all ended up spending that night with their respective female love interests.  I realized that night that this really was my burden to carry, because when push comes to shove, they got to go to their God- and church-approved girlfriends (or potential girlfriends) and find some degree of intimacy and the promise of full intimacy sometime down the road.  That realization, and their unintentional acts of rubbing it in my face, pushed me into a full tailspin that night.  I spent over half an hour considering and even planning to end my own life.
I’m not going to describe that night.  I think I’ve described it well enough elsewhere.  But what I will say is that in that night, I wanted to die because I realized that I could never “beat” my sexual feelings and romantic desires.  There was no going straight for me.  I had tried and failed.  If I continued down that path, the only thing waiting for me was depression, loneliness, and shame.  And I couldn’t face that path.  If that path was my only choice, I knew it would be better to end my life.  So I seriously contemplated it.
And at some point, that realization horrified me.  So two nights later, I chose to walk another path.
—
* Given the number of ex-gays who talk about going to therapy, support groups, or even residency programs, I felt out of place at first.  I was quite relieved when I discovered that the bXg community had an entire group for people who went through self-guided attempts at becoming ex-gay.
** I’ve searched every aspect of my memory, and everything convinces me that the truly terrifying dark night was two nights before I came out on April Fool’s Day.  Curiously, this means I surived in some sort of in-between state for a full day on Sunday.  I have no idea what that day was like or how I managed to survive and not find myself with the same dark thoughts that night as I had entertained the night before.

Gender and Sexuality

In a Small Alcove at Susquehanna University

7 Comments
Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...

Image via Wikipedia

I came out to myself and my best friend at the time on Monday, 1 April 1996.  Tomorrow, 1 April 2011 marks the fifteenth anniversary of that event.  In honor of that, I’ve decided to do a series of posts on the topic.  This is the first one.

My mind floats back fifteen years ago — almost to the day — and a few hundred miles away.  I can still remember what it was like that night, sitting in the cloth-covered chair with wooden arm rests that sat in the tiny alcove of the first floor of Seibert Hall.  I never knew which professors had their offices there, but the place was familiar.  I chose that place to meet Merion because not only was it relatively secluded from the bustle of campus nightlife (or what passed for campus nightlife on a Monday night), but it was a place both of us knew well.  It was the same tiny alcove that the Bible study we both attended — and I eventually became coleader of — met once a week the year before.

I needed that familiarity to help calm my nerves.  It didn’t work, because I was a complete wreck.  I think it took me over five minutes to build up the courage — that is, to grit my teeth hard enough — to utter those two words:  “I’m gay.”

I hadn’t said those words prior to that moment, and that was a big thing.  Oh sure, I had admitted that I was attracted to guys.  I had even told a number of people.  But I had mostly said “I’m struggling with homosexuality” or something like that.  Up to this point, I had made it clear that I didn’t want to feel this way.  The closest I had come to those two words were a few weeks earlier when I told my friend, Joyce, “I think I might be gay.”*  Even then, I had left myself the escape hatch.  I may have started to realize I was losing the “ex-gay struggle,” but I hadn’t “conceded defeat” yet.

That night, sitting in that chair and facing Merion in the the chairs twin to my right, I made that concession.  And it was hard to do, because I knew exactly what I was doing.  It was terrifying to do it, even though I knew that Merion would be completely supportive, as she had already came out to me as bisexual** about a year earlier.

I think by the time I said it and for the first several minutes after I made my confession, I was actually shaking.  I was that worked up.  Merion was wonderful though.  She was encouraging.  She was supportive.  She was incredible.  I don’t really remember much of what she said to me, other than the fact that she told me how honored she was that I chose to tell her.  The rest of the details, however, blur into the emotional chaos I was going through at the time.

But that also marked the beginning of the end of the emotional chaos.  I escaped the prison of fear and shame that day.  I ran out screaming — almost literally.  And while things didn’t get instantly better, the process of improvement began.  It’s taken me years to clean up the mess I was left with, and in some ways, I’m still cleaning it up.  (I’ll talk about that more tomorrow.)  But that moment moved me into a place in my journey where I could face that task, no matter how daunting it seemed at times.

—

* And Joyce, in her well-meaning but less-than-helpful way, glibly responded by saying, “It’s about time you figured it out.”  Seriously folks, I know sometimes you can tell that a loved one is gay before they’re able or willing to admit it to even themselves.  But this is not the way to respond when they finally confide in you.  If you must tell them you already figured it out, do so in the gentlest way possible.  Otherwise, it can come across as you dishonoring their choice to be completely open and vulnerable to you in a way which was probably took a lot of courage on their part.

** That night, Merion clarified that she was a lesbian.  She was one of those people who originally came out as bisexual because it was easier to take that as a step towards coming out as strictly gay.  And no, that does not mean that everyone who says they’re bi is doing so.  There are authentically bisexual people out there, too.  The fact that there are some people in the gay community who refuse to accept that is a personal pet peev of mine.

Gender and Sexuality

Going beyond my experience

4 Comments

After a long silence, I’ve decided that it’s time to start blogging again.  I’m actually excited about an upcoming post I’m planning to publish, as it involves doing something a bit new for me.  I’m not exactly sure when I’ll be posting it, as I’m waiting for it to finish undergoing editorial review.

Normally, I don’t submit my blog posts to anyone for editorial review.  Most of the time, I don’t review them myself.  I just put something together, do a few last minutes tweaks, and then hit the button to publish the darn thing.  The process of asking others to review my writing before sharing it with the world is entirely new to me.  But then, this kind of post is entirely new to me, and therefore demands to be treated differently.

The post I’m referring to is a review of a panel discussion on transgender issues that I attended yesterday evening.  The discussion was delightful and interesting, and I decided that I wanted to find a way to share it on my blog.

The thing is, I’m relatively uneducated and clueless when it comes to transgender issues, which means that posting on the topic is a bit troubling and tricky to me.  As such, I have asked the organizers and speakers from last night’s event to review and offer feedback on my post.  I wish to do my best job to accurately represent their words, their experiences, and their concerns as accurately as possible, and that means inviting them to check my work.

To be honest, I’m not sure I’ll ever fully understand transgender issues.  Not being transgendered, I think that it’s simply something that is beyond my experience in ways that prevent me from fully understanding.  There are a lot of things out there that are like that.  (I often feel the same way when trying to understand my friends who have or had multiple personalities.)  I think everyone comes into contact with things that are beyond their experience and therefore difficult and even possibly to truly understand.

The question becomes one of what we do when we are faced with something beyond our own experience.  Do we try to force that new information, those foreign ideas, or the experiences of others to fit into our own mold?  Do we try to dismiss these things, insisting that our own experience can’t possibly be incomplete and that our inability to fully understand can only mean that something must be wrong with whatever we don’t understand?

Or do we simply acknowledge that our own experiences are limited and our own understanding incomplete is at best as a result?  Do we set aside our own preconceived notions and try our best to listen and understand, even if incompletely?  Do we try to connect and attain partial understanding by finding analogous experiences in our own life, taking care to remember that such analogues are imperfect and still only provide us partial understanding?  Do we accept that even in our imperfect understanding, there can be perfect acceptance?

It is with these latter goals in mind that I went to last night’s discussion and wrote my soon-to-be-published blog post.  It is with those goals in mind that I asked others to review my work and dialogue with me to help me understand and further share those things that are beyond my own experience.  I think there is nothing nobler than a desire to offer perfect acceptance while gaining imperfect (though improving) understanding.

Gender and Sexuality, Society

The “Gay McDonald’s Ad”

13 Comments

It’s been far too long since I blogged.  This has mainly been because I’ve been busy with work, family stuff, coven stuff, and illness.  However, I hope to get back to things soon.  For right now, I just wanted to share and comment on a recent French McDonald’s ad that has been receiving some attention lately.

Personally, I think it’s sweet, classy, and absolutely perfect.  I know some detractors have asked what it has to do with eating at McDonald’s.  Well, to be honest, I don’t think it has much to do with eating at McDonald’s other than it’s a way of saying that everyone from all walks of lives are welcome, which is the point of the greater “come as you are” campaign of which this ad is a part.  But even if we don’t accept that argument, let’s be honest here.  So much of the grist for so many of today’s advertising campaigns have so little to do with the product or service being promoted, it’s hardly reasonable to single this one ad out.  People never bothered asking what a talking gecko driving a sports car really had to do with car insurance, just to point out one example.  (And don’t get me wrong, I adore that little green guy!)

And personally, I think the gay theme is done so tastefully and almost understated, that people like Bill O’Reilly just look all that much more stupid for making a fuss over it.

Gender and Sexuality, Humor, Man-Crazy

Incorrigible!, Scene One

3 Comments

Cast

Queer:  A flamboyantly gay man in his mid-thirties.  Bears a striking resemblance to the playwright.

Straightboy:  A slender, fit man in his late teens or early twenties. Has a brush cut and looks like he works out a lot.

Straightboy Too:  A friend and near carbon copy of Straightboy.

Clerk:  An easy-going, mellow gentleman in his early forties.  Knows Queer, who is a regular customer at the gas station.

Bystanders:  A small group of people of various ages and genders.

Setting

The gas station where Clerk works.  Straightboy and Straightboy Too are at the counter and Queer is standing directly behind him.  The bystanders fill out the line behind the trio.

Action

Straightboy Too:  Do you need to see my ID, too?

Clerk:  Yes.  (Takes the card offered by Straightboy Too.)  I can’t take this ID.  I see you have a New York driver’s license.  Give me that.

Straightboy Too:  (Handing over a second card.)  You can’t take military ID?

Clerk:  They don’t have a barcode I can scan, so no.

Straightboy Too:  (Collects his ID and turns to Straightboy.)  I’ll go move your truck to one of the pumps.  (Exits.)

Straightboy:  (Turning to address everyone in line behind him.)  I’m sorry it’s taking so long.

(Several seconds pause.  Queer looks mildly amused at this point.)

Straightboy:  (Turning to Queer.)  I’m sorry to slow things down.

Queer:  (Smiling and affecting a nonchalant tone as Straightboy turns to face Clerk again.)  That’s okay, hon.  You’re cute so I’ll forgive you this time.

(Straightboy turns with a startled, disbelieving look.  Queer continues to smile and Straightboy turns around and finishes paying Clerk before exiting.)

End Scene

Gender and Sexuality

Homophobia Comes in Many Forms

10 Comments
SAN FRANCISCO - JUNE 29: A reveler holds a ga...

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, an annual day sponsored by Fondation ?mergence to raise awareness of and combat the ugly phenomenon known as homophobia.  This is an important thing, as homophobia is something that adversely affects millions of LGBT people, not to mention those who choose to embrace homophobia.  (I hope to talk about that last bit in a later post.)

This is also an important issue because while some manifestations of homophobia are easy to spot, some are far more subtle, easily rationalized, and therefore more insidious in some ways.  It’s easy to spot and speak out against thugs who go around beating up gay people.  It’s pretty easy to spot and stop the school bully who calls smaller boys “queer” and otherwises taunts them.  It’s much harder to spot and address the more decent, mild mannered person who still manages to be homophobic in subtler ways, the person who might not even be aware that what they’re doing is homophobic.

Some will complain — and quite loudly — that believing that same sex sexual relationships are wrong or immoral is not homophobic.  Most days, I’m inclined to agree with them.  I think that such a belief is wrong and wrong-headed.  But I don’t think taht such a belief in itself homophobic.

However, beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum, and one of the biggest problems with such a belief is that it usually leads to actions that are homophobic.  So while keeping in mind that believing that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong is not homophobic, I’d like to point out some of the subsequent homophobic pitfalls that someone who holds such beliefs might fall into.

Refusing to befriend, get to know, and actually listen to gay people simply because they are gay is homophobic.  If concern for maintaining the purity of your beliefs gets in the way of being a friendly and personable individual, that’s something you will need to address.

Having “gay friends,” but quickly changing the subject whenever they start discussing their love life or romantic interests is homophobic.  Real friends don’t get to pick and choose what aspects of their friends lives they’re open to.  They don’t even ask for such a privilege.

Making assumptions about what gay people are like, what they value in their relationships, and what their sex lives are like (and if you’re spending that much time thinking about that last one, ew!) is homophobic.  Gay people are people too, and we can be very diverse.  Making assumptions based solely on who we are attracted too is wrong on a number of levels, including the homophobic level.

There are many other such examples.  In short, any way in which someone treats or thinks of an LGBT person differently from other people — often in ways that are dehumanizing — is homophobic.

The good news is that people can do something about homophobia.  We just need to work on making people aware of its existence and the need to change the way things are.

Related articles by Zemanta
Gender and Sexuality

Examining the Immorality of Sexually Moralistic Liars

9 Comments
Morality

Image by tdietmut via Flickr

This morning, while checking out Carol Boltz’s latest blog post, I saw a link to a “survey” (and I use the term loosely) put out by the Public Advocate of the United States.  Apparently, the PAUS is yet another group of moralizing Christian busy-bodies posing as “defenders of traditional values.” I put that in quotes because, given how little integrity they demonstrate in presenting the facts and issues they discuss, I have a hard time buying they’d know a traditional value if it bit them on the butt.  The truth is, they’re just a bunch of moralists who want to say what kind of relationships and sexual activities are okay.  They don’t care about anything like compassion, integrity, loyalty, hospitality, justice, or anything you might find in the Boy Scout Law, the fruit of the spirit passage in the New Testament, or any other treatise on what it means to be a moral person.

Their “survey,” however, is instructive.  It demonstrates just how willing they are to put out leading questions that are worded in such a way that they practically beg to be answered they way PAUS wants people to answer them.  It’s much like using the infamous “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” and only giving the options to answer yes or no.  What idiot is going to answer that question “no,” even if he’s never beat his wife.

So with that in mind, I want to take a moment to examine their five questions, dissect them, and demonstrate just how manipulative and misleading they are.

1. Should homosexuals receive special job rights and force businesses, schools, churches and even daycares to hire and advance homosexuals or face prosecution and multimillion-dollar lawsuits?

I believe that all employers should base their hiring decisions on exactly one thing:  The applicant’s ability to perform the duties of the job being applied for.  And that’s exactly what non-discrimination legislation is about.  It’s not about “special rights.”  It’s a way of telling employers that, “Hey, if the guy applying for that job happens to be gay and that’s the only reason you’re not giving it to him, that’s discrimination and you’re breaking the law.”  Personally, I’d add that any employer who turns down a highly candidate for such a reason should not be an employer because they’re probably not a very good one.  They certainly don’t have the best interests of their business or organization in mind.  That also tends to make them rather immoral, in my book.

But rather than own up to discriminating, engaging in bad hiring practices, and being and incompetent and immoral employer, it’s much easier to pretend it’s about “special rights” and being “forced” into everything.  No one wants to oppose a victim, so they’d rather play the victim.  And hey, what’s a little dishonesty?  Like I said, they’re just against sex.

2. Do you support the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual “art”, so called AIDS-awareness programs and homosexual research grants that are frequently funneled to political advocacy?

I’m a strong believer that all art should be supported, and I find it interesting that these guys are only opposed to “homosexual” art.  I can understand and respect those people who believe that all art should be privately funded (though I disagree vehemently with them) because they’re being consistent.  These guys, however, are going for the shock value of funding “gay art.”

And I really would like to ask PAUS about what they would do about AIDS?  Just let everyone who becomes infected die?  Not very compassionate.  That’s another traditional values failure on their part.

3. Should homosexuality be promoted in school as a healthy lifestyle choice, while information about the life threatening consequences are ignored?

The only life threatening consequences of “homosexuality” are the same life-threatening consequences of that anyone of any sexual orientation potentially faces.  Straight people contract HIV and other STD’s as well.  What’s more, the approaches to address and decrease those dangers is also the same for gay and heterosexual people alike.  People like the PAUS simply like to pretend that there’s bigger risks for gay people.  However, the only support they have for those claims comes from outdated and/or bad (junk) science.

And no one’s suggesting that we shouldn’t have a frank talk about health risks and ways of preventing illness.  I’m all for talking about the very real risks of sexual activity.  The difference between me and PAUS is that I don’t want to use that talk to scare and manipulate (that’s another values failure, for those keeping track) people into doing what I want them to do.  I simply want them to be able to make informed decisions.  The PAUS wants them to make the “right” (determined by the PAUS, of course) decision based on misleading or outright false information.

4. Do you support same-sex “marriage” for homosexuals or “marriage-like” rights, like homosexuals being able to adopt children and raise them in their “lifestyle”?

Oh no!  The gays are raising children.  You can almost hear the implied screams of “They’re recruiting” buried in this question.  There’s just one problem.  There’s absolutely zero evidence that a child raised by gay people is any more likely to be gay than those raised by straight people.  And let’s be honest here, gay people just aren’t going to care whether their kid is straight or gay.  This is more fear-mongering by PAUS.

5.   Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?

The problem with this question is that it ignores the fact that the “traditional family” that people like PAUS keep touting is a fabrication of the 1950’s.  People two hundred years ago did not marry for love, something that is big these days.  They often were involved in arranged marriages, and they were often for political reasons.  They also often involved paying a dowry.  Like the bumper sticker says, “I believe in traditional marriage.  How much do you want for your daughter.”

In fact, the Bible makes it pretty clear that a one-man, one-woman marriage was far from the only possible or acceptable arrangement.  The number of Biblical heroes — men established as God-fearing men and mighty instruments of Jehovah’s will — had multiple wives and even concubines.  And to top that off, considering that the only two Biblical prohibitions against polygamy were directed at specific groups of individuals (namely kings and ministers), one could argue that the underlying implication is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable.  Somehow, I don’t think the PAUS will be looking to support quite such a “literal” interpretation of those passages, though.  😉

But the PAUS would rather have you believe that this is the first time our understanding of love, marriage, and relationships has undergone any sort of shift.  This is because they want to let you believe that this will spell certain doom.  If gay people start getting married, existing stable families will magically crumble to dust (I never understood how that’s supposed to work, anyway) and no one will ever want to raise a family again.  Because if you let us gay get married, your desire for a spouse and 2.5 kids will get absorbed by the resulting gay mojo that will be released or something.  Hey, the PAUS doesn’t need to make sense.  They just need to prey on your fears enough that you do whatever they tell you to.

So there you have it.  That’s how moralistic groups that like to pretend they’re about “traditional values” spin and manipulate the facts to try and get people to agree with them.  But don’t believe it for a second.  You won’t find any true morality in them.

Gender and Sexuality, Movies, Sexuality

Movie Review: Shank

Leave a comment

I’ve watched a number of movies that have dealt with the theme of young men coming to terms with being gay.  However, it is the rare movie that explores that theme with the intensity and rawness as Shank, the British film directed by Simon Pearce.  In this film, Pearce gives us a glimpse into the life of Cal, a teenage gang member who is trying to hide his sexual orientaion from his fellow thugs.

The movie quickly introduces us to Cal, who copes with his feelings by engaging in random sexual encounters, drug use, and gang violence.  The first few scenes show the gritty nature of his life in the gang.  However, Cal’s life suddenly changes when his best mate, Jonno, and their de facto leader, Nessa, decide to pick on poor Olivier, a French exchange student who is stereotypically and somewhat flamboyantly gay.  In a moment of conscience and fear — and perhaps seeing too much of himself and his potential fate in Olivier and the treatment he receives — Cal stops the pair from beating the French boy, allows him to escape, and then abandons his fellow thugs to apologize to Olivier and offer him a lift home.

Cal attempts to return to his gang’s hideout later, only to discover that he is not only unwelcome, but an acceptable target for his former comrades’ anger and violence.  Cal escapes and returns to Olivier, and the pair soon get involved in a rocky, tenuous relationship.  However, Nessa and the other gang members discover Cal’s secret and begin to hunt down the pair.

This movie is a masterful blending of grit (to rival FAQ’s and Ethan Mao) and tender sensuality, demonstrating the storm of emotions that Cal experiences as he is tugged in different directions.  All of the actors play their parts well, filling each scene with emotion through words, tone of voice, body gestures, and expression.  Even characters like Nessa, whose deeper motives for her anger and rage towards Cal are beautifully fore-shadowed toward the beginning of the movie, are given a great deal of attention and depth.

One particularly interesting piece of cinematography in this movie was the use of the cell phone video footage. The gang always recorded their acts of violence via cell phone, and this fact was used in the movie to hint at violence to come at times.  It was an interesting way of adding a bit of suspense at critical moments.

My one criticism of this movie would be that there’s a bit more synchronicity in the movie than is really reasonable.  For example, it’s entirely too convenient that the first sexual encounter Cal has with the movie is with Scott, who later turns out to be one of Olivier’s university instructors.  There were other coincidences involving Scott, which I will not go into, as it would reveal too much about how the movie concludes.

As a final note, I would warn readers that this is a very violent movie and even includes sexual violence.  Those who are bothered or emotionally trigger by such things should either skip this one or take appropriate precautions when sitting down to watch it.

Gender and Sexuality, Paganism, Society

Employment, Community, and Coming Out

Leave a comment
Queer Pagan Flag

Image via Wikipedia

Tonight while doing laundry and packing for my trip to Erie, I spent some time listening to Episode 22 of the Inciting A Riot podcast.  Fire Lyte is an intelligent, funny, and charming podcaster and I highly recommend you check out both his podcast and his blog.  For my own post, however, I want to focus on the segment of Episode 22 where Fire Lyte talks about work and the closet.

Fire Lyte makes the sound observation that different jobs allow for different levels of being open about one’s spirituality and sexuality.  I know that as  software engineer, I’m in a position of great comfort.  An old coworker once summed up the engineers’ situations when he commented that he once overheard a conversation between two managers discussing the engineering department on a previous job.  The older manager told his junior, “They’re a weird lot.  But they get the job done, so leave them alone.”  My own experience has verified the truth of that mentality, that most people in charge of engineers are willing to overlook just about any “personality quirk” as long as the person in question proves themselves an invaluable resource.  As such, I can be relatively open about both my sexuality and my spirituality without worrying about my job.  Someone who is in a teaching position or — to go back to Fire Lyte’s example — who is working for children in a governmental capacity may not be so lucky.  To them, an alternate spirituality or sexuality could be a liability to them.

Fire Lyte’s advice on the matter is to be conscious of this, both when making decisions about how out to be in their current job or in deciding what job opportunities to pursue.  This is certainly sound advice from an individual perspective, and I support the idea that an individual’s first concern should be his or her own well-being.  Principles don’t matter as much when you can’t afford to buy food.

However, the down-side to that advice is that it does tend to reinforce the status quo rather than challenge it.  And as an idealist, this is one area where I certainly would like to see the status quo challenged and eventually broken.  To accomplish that, someone somewhere — quite probably a lot of soemones in a lot of different somewheres — are going to have to push their luck and take risks.

Part of the problem, as Fire Lyte noted, is that people have all these strange ideas about Pagans (and gay people), and that if you happen to be the only person that your employer or others know that is Pagan (or gay), then you have an uphill battle to fight, and one that your employer or others in power may not be willing to let you fight.

The problem is, there’s ultimately only one permanent solution to that scenario:  Pagans (and gay people) need to become more visible.  As long as we stay hidden because it’s easier, then people will remain unconfronted with and uninformed about us.  As I said, we only reinforce the status quo.

This doesn’t mean that I think everyone should run out and tell their boss, their neighbors, or anyone else that they are Pagan (or gay).  I don’t think everyone should slap a pentacle or pride flag on their desk at work, their car, or their living room window (my landlord made me take mine down due to a lease violation).  I may be an idealist, but I’m not a moron.  But there are those of us who can take risks — and there are different levels of risk that different people can take — that would go a long way.

There are those of us in jobs where we are secure, either due to the nature of the job or the fact that we are invaluable to our employer.  And I’d encourage those who have been at their job for five years or more (yes, such loyal employees still do exist, though they’re rare) to think about how they might have the job security to push the boundaries a little.  Because the only way we can gain more visibility and more understanding is to be more visible.

I’ll also note that the advantage of having been at a job for a long time before coming out is that you’re an established person.  Rather than being an unknown individual who is a “weird Pagan,” you become a known hard worker who happens to be a “weird Pagan.”  And ultimately, I think that’s what we need.  We need to be seen as full individuals.

As I said, there are different levels of risk.  This most directly translates into different levels of being “out.”  “Coming out” at work can be something as simple as telling a couple of trusted coworkers (or even a trusted manager) in confidence.  The whole office doesn’t necessarily need to know, and even the increased awareness of one or two people can have positive and radical results in the long term.  I’m reminded of the job I had in Ithaca.  During the four years I was there, I kept a picture of my boyfriend on my desk.  The only two people who commented on it the entire time I was there originally assumed it was a picture of my brother.  I politely informed them each that the handsome man was my boyfriend.  The one said nothing more, while the other became a better friend.  I’m not sure what anyone else in the office made of the picture.  For all I know, the others still assumed he was my brother, and I was content to let them assume that.

In the end, each person must make their own choices when it comes to the closet(s) and how “out” they want to be at work, in their community, or in other aspect of their lives.  Each person must decide what level of risk he or she is willing to take, and I would not dream of dictating such important choices to others.  Bu I would encourage everyone to consider again what level of risk they might be willing to live with if it means a long-term improvement for all Pagans (and/or gay people).