[GN] OP-ED: Lesbians have ruined the gay movement? (fwd)
Natalie Davis
Please Post Widely
************************************************************
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=298
Lesbians have ruined the gay movement?
by Paula Martinac
July 16, 2001
Here's a pronouncement I wish I never had to hear again from any gay man:
"Lesbian-feminists have ruined the gay movement." This was the crux of a
recent lecture, provocatively titled "The Emasculation of Gay Politics,"
that gay journalist Andrew Sullivan gave in New York. Statements that
Sullivan made and that I've heard different versions of from other gay men
suggest that they are willfully ignoring the important role feminism could
play in their lives.
At this moment, Sullivan is the loudest proponent of this "lesbians have
taken over" view. But in fact, feminist-bashing has been a popular sport of
the gay right for years. In the early 1990s, gay writer Stephen H. Miller
was penning anti-feminist tirades in Christopher Street magazine with
headlines like "Who Stole the Gay Movement?"
Feminism, according to these gay writers, has infused our movement with a
politics of victimization. As a result, the gay movement has become more
about hating the people who oppose us than about building a strong, unified
gay community. Worse yet, because feminists direct our movement, gay men
don't feel free to connect with their true, core masculinity; whenever they
try to, harpy lesbians jump in to berate them as sexist. Gay men are, in
effect, being pussy-whipped.
Ironically, this kind of thinking suggests that gay men are victims, the
helpless pawns of pushy dykes. Sullivan actually proposes that if lesbians
weren't running most of the national gay organizations and alienating their
gay brothers with incessant demands of political correctness, more gay men
would abandon their beach chairs on Fire Island and get actively involved in
community politics. Curiously, Sullivan neglects to say what prevented so
many beach boys from getting involved in gay politics when there were almost
no large community organizations for lesbians to ruthlessly grab control
of --that is, before AIDS came along.
Of course, throughout history, there have been men who've used some version
of the "women are to blame" argument. It's a long and cherished tradition to
point to women as the cause of just about everything undesirable -- like
homosexuality and male juvenile delinquency -- right on back to the biblical
"Fall of Man."
But it's disheartening to see gay men upholding that tradition. And it's not
exclusively the gay right taking part. More subtle forms of feminist-bashing
have trickled out of the gay center and gay left, too. Sullivan hasn't been
the only gay man to raise a skeptical eyebrow and wonder loudly, "How could
the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force hire seven female executive
directors in a row? Didn't any men apply for the job?"
At the root of all the complaints about lesbian-feminism is, I think, the
misperception that feminism has no relevance for gay men. In fact, the
connection between feminism and gay men is profound.
In his talk, Sullivan spoke of the "deep wound" that many gay men carry from
childhood -- being taunted because they're not "real men." Yet he failed to
go a step further and recognize that, in the eyes of many straight men, what
being a "real man" signifies is being higher up the social scale than women.
As Suzanne Pharr first theorized in the late 1980s, homophobia pretty much
owes its existence to sexism.
Gay men who've been able to draw that vital connection have seen it in their
interest to support feminists and join in coalition with them. But Sullivan
suggests that gay men start learning from straight men instead. We need, he
says, a "more masculine gay politics," one that is "less passive and
defensive" (read: "feminine"). In cruder terms, let's put those broads back
in their place and start doing guy stuff.
There's a persuasive book called "Manhood in America: A Cultural History,"
written by Michael Kimmel, a very smart and well-known sociologist who's not
hesitant to make connections. Kimmel's the kind of straight man I wish
Sullivan would bond with, but I doubt if he's someone Sullivan has in mind
for guy-to-guy talks.
Through a historical study of masculinity in this country since the 18th
century, Kimmel shows that prevailing ideas about what makes a "real man"
have often been about "the fear of others dominating us, having power or
control over us." By contrast, womanhood, femininity and effeminacy comprise
"a negative pole against which men define themselves."
How great it would be, Kimmel suggests, if men didn't have to live up to a
constricting idea of manhood. What a different society this could be, better
for everyone, male and female, straight and gay.
That's the hope feminism has been holding out for years. Instead of seeing
feminists as the spoilers of the gay movement, then, I wish more gay men
would recognize that feminism is ultimately on their side.
****************************
Paula Martinac is the author of seven books, including The Queerest Places:
A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Historic Sites. She can be reached care of this
publication or at LNco...@aol.com.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Eric Bohlman
>I'm a gay man, but in my experience:
>
>1. Lesbians, as opposed to gay men, seem to take a longer period of time before
>forming a domestic partnership with someone they're dating. I've also come to
>believe a lesbian partnership has a substantially longer life-span than that of
>gay men (on average).
This is probably due to (average) differences in male vs. female sexual behavior, with men
preferring more partners and women fewer. I don't think, though, that it's related to the next
difference.
>2. Lesbians seem to be more level-headed than their gay-male counterparts. It
>seems a majority of gay, public, organizations have lesbian spokespersons; it's
>been my experience lesbians are less likely to get "caught up" in some dramatic,
>histrionic display and more likely to plant their feet, roll up their sleeves,
>and get something done.
Yes, I think there's an assumption among a lot of gay male activists that social change takes place
primarily through a few grand dramatic gestures rather than through tedious, low-profile work. To
some extent, that's a reflection of a tendency in broader American society (see Philip Slater's
_The Pursuit of Loneliness_) to expect problems to be solved by grand gestures, but it's still a
bit of a puzzle why gay male activists are more susceptible to this than lesbian activists. It may
partially stem from a camp sensibility; a good part of camp is about getting a rise out of people,
and it's apparently easy to slide from the fact that true activism often pisses people off to the
notion that pissing people off is the primary purpose, rather than a side effect, of activism.
It also seems to me that gay men are more susceptible to the "rebel without a cause" attitude
toward activism, in which one opposes the establishment not because of anything bad the
establishment has done, but simply because it *is* the establishment. The HIV "dissidents" are the
classic example here. This style of activism is all attitude and no substance; it may just be an
extended form of adolescent rebellion. In any case it lends itself far more to bitching than to
effort.
It may simply be that, due to women's generally worse position in society than men, lesbians simply
can't afford the luxury of sitting around bitching and waiting for drama; they have practical
reasons to act in a practical fashion.
Eric Payne
> Eric Payne and Natalie Davis make broad generalizations that undermine
> the centrality of their arguments. Typically, they are mistaking the
> "context" of a comment for its "substance," an error that all too
> frequently strikes at Andrew Sullivan.
Funny, I could have sworn I said something to the effect of trying to re-start an
argument that was baseless the first time around.
> Sullivan's argument is that the feminist credo of victimization is BAD
> for gay men. Read the statement carefully. He's not criticizing
> feminism, per se. He's criticizing that element of feminism, often
> referred to as "Nazi-feminism," which maintains women and men are
> "victims" in the endless queue of victimhood. It's the Left's
> equivalent to the Right's Commies theory.
Victims are victims only if they choose to be. I am not a victim, nor do I consider
myself victimized. Again, I point out, I was talking about Sullivan using a baseless
arguement to get the heat off himself for his latest hypocritical actions.
And who's crying "victim" anyway? Check out Sullivan's response to Michael
Signorile's disclosure of Sullivan's hypocrisy... where Sullivan identifies himself
as a "victim of McCarthy-like practices."
You want to defend Sullivan? Fine... but do so from a factual point of view, which
encompasses the entire picture.
Sullivan, using his NY Times and New Republic writing positions became the "sex
police" when it came to President Clinton, and in espousing his viewpoints on how gay
men should live their lives to gain "acceptance." He very publicly, and constantly,
harped the dogma of conservatism: Sex is a private thing. Gays must learn to become
monogamous. Gays have to work to smash the image of them as pure sexual animals,
merely hopping from man to man.
(BTW: The philosophy, as stated, is one which I apply to my own life; I am
monogamous, have had a partner of 7 years, and what I do in bed is the business of
myself and my partner, period.)
All the while, though, Sullivan is using a domain he owns, and a screen name on his
AOL account, to search for anonymous sexual encounters, either with a single partner
or multiple partners, to engage in unsafe sexual activity.
Sullivan begins crying "foul!", completely forgetting (or seeming to forget) the
positions he has publicly stated should be THE postions of the gay community, and his
lack of adherence to those self-proclaimed principles. He rebuts with his "I'm a
victim of sexual McCarthyism" column... and THEN denounces feminism as "victim
mentality"? You don't see a contradiction/hypocrisy here?
>
> The Victimology, not feminism qua feminism, that Sullivan attacks has
> been a mainstay of his criticism for years, and both our contributors
> ought to honestly attack Sullivan for his actual views, if they
> disagree with him, not on his purported views (which are the context,
> not the substance). I happen to agree with Sullivan's view that making
> homosexuals feel they are a "victim" of something solves nor resolves
> nothing. It's like a pity party of one. Yes, gays and lesbians have
> known abuse, enmity, and discrimination, but so have the Irish,
> Italians, Blacks, Asians, etc. What good is served by languishing in
> the victimhood of being gay or a lesbian?
There's a name for gay men who languish "in the victimhood of being gay...". It's
called "Drama Queens." I do not associate with them; if they're unwilling to do
something positive for themselves, and their self-esteem, I have no time for them.
I really wish people would STOP thinking they have the knowledge of what I'm thinking
to speak for me... and judging from some of the responses to a couple of my postings,
there's more than our share of Emily Latella's out there in readership-land.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
D Stephen Heersink
the centrality of their arguments. Typically, they are mistaking the
"context" of a comment for its "substance," an error that all too
frequently strikes at Andrew Sullivan.
Sullivan's argument is that the feminist credo of victimization is BAD
for gay men. Read the statement carefully. He's not criticizing
feminism, per se. He's criticizing that element of feminism, often
referred to as "Nazi-feminism," which maintains women and men are
"victims" in the endless queue of victimhood. It's the Left's
equivalent to the Right's Commies theory.
The Victimology, not feminism qua feminism, that Sullivan attacks has
been a mainstay of his criticism for years, and both our contributors
ought to honestly attack Sullivan for his actual views, if they
disagree with him, not on his purported views (which are the context,
not the substance). I happen to agree with Sullivan's view that making
homosexuals feel they are a "victim" of something solves nor resolves
nothing. It's like a pity party of one. Yes, gays and lesbians have
known abuse, enmity, and discrimination, but so have the Irish,
Italians, Blacks, Asians, etc. What good is served by languishing in
the victimhood of being gay or a lesbian?
Some argue it gives strength to the oppressed; I think it keeps the
oppressed in their oppression. I think this correlates with Sullivan's
view.
>> Here's a pronouncement I wish I never had to hear again from any gay man:
>> "Lesbian-feminists have ruined the gay movement." This was the crux of a
>> recent lecture, provocatively titled "The Emasculation of Gay Politics,"
>> that gay journalist Andrew Sullivan gave in New York. Statements that
>> Sullivan made and that I've heard different versions of from other gay men
>> suggest that they are willfully ignoring the important role feminism could
>> play in their lives.
>
>It looks like Sullivan thinks he's found a way to get the spotlight off his
>recent hypocritical behavior by "re-creating" a debate that was meaningless the
>first time around, and serves only to make the gay and lesbian community weaker.
>
>I'm a gay man, but in my experience:
>
>1. Lesbians, as opposed to gay men, seem to take a longer period of time before
>forming a domestic partnership with someone they're dating. I've also come to
>believe a lesbian partnership has a substantially longer life-span than that of
>gay men (on average).
>
>2. Lesbians seem to be more level-headed than their gay-male counterparts. It
>seems a majority of gay, public, organizations have lesbian spokespersons; it's
>been my experience lesbians are less likely to get "caught up" in some dramatic,
>histrionic display and more likely to plant their feet, roll up their sleeves,
>and get something done.
>
>Then again, starting the "lesbians have ruined the gay movement" canard could be
>something Sullivan truly believes... I mean, when was the last time you saw a
>lesbian pontificating monogamy, responsibility and conservatism in the press,
>while all the time advertising on public and private web-sites for an anonymous,
>or a multiple anonymous, unsafe sexual encounter?
>
>Eric Payne
>Livermore, CA
>
>**********
>
>If you receive GayNet via direct email:
>To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
> unsubscribe gaynet
>in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
>up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
D Stephen Heersink
>Victims are victims only if they choose to be. I am not a victim, nor do I consider
>myself victimized. Again, I point out, I was talking about Sullivan using a baseless
>arguement to get the heat off himself for his latest hypocritical actions.
No, you are asserting he has an argument and he is using it to cover
up his hypocritical actions. What hypocritical actions? What argument?
>And who's crying "victim" anyway? Check out Sullivan's response to Michael
>Signorile's disclosure of Sullivan's hypocrisy... where Sullivan identifies himself
>as a "victim of McCarthy-like practices."
To argue against Nazi-feminism and its embrace of victimology doesn't
obviate all other possible claims to being a victim. Once again Mr.
Signorile is claimed to have disclosed Sullivan's hypocrisy, but what
hypocrisy? That people are using McCarthy-like tactics to blackball
him as a hypocrite? Based on what evidence I have now, it DOES seem
that Mr. Sullivan is the "victim" of a witch hunt against the context
of his message rather than its substance. Being a victim of one thing
doesn't preclude not being a victim of something else, and vice versa.
>You want to defend Sullivan? Fine... but do so from a factual point of view, which
>encompasses the entire picture.
It's not Sullivan I want to defend; he's quite capable of doing that
himself. But the "factual point of view, which encompasses the entire
picture" makes no sense. Sullivan is not arguing "facts" but "issues."
He doesn't need to construct a "factual point of view," and I am not
sure anyone know what this really is.
>Sullivan, using his NY Times and New Republic writing positions became the "sex
>police" when it came to President Clinton, and in espousing his viewpoints on how gay
>men should live their lives to gain "acceptance." He very publicly, and constantly,
>harped the dogma of conservatism: Sex is a private thing. Gays must learn to become
>monogamous. Gays have to work to smash the image of them as pure sexual animals,
>merely hopping from man to man.
This is such a disprovable ad hominem it's difficult to respond. Mr.
Sullivan enjoys writing privileges at many of the nation's prestigious
journals and periodicals -- a consequence of his coherence and
consistency, hardly as a member of the "sex police." THERE is a
difference between what you and I and Mr. Sullivan do in the privacy
of our homes and what the President of the United States does on
government property, including his guilt of obstructing justice. Mr.
Sullivan is only pointing out the obvious, but apparently you are
willing to overlook these character flaws in Mr. Clinton. You seem to
be saying Mr. Clinton can do no wrong, but Mr. Sullivan can do no
right. Sullivan is on record (as was Mr. Clinton) favoring marriage
(only in different concepts), and Mr. Clinton professed one thing, and
showed his contempt for what he professed by his actions with an
intern. There IS hypocrisy here, but it belongs to Mr. Clinton, not
Mr. Sullivan.
>(BTW: The philosophy, as stated, is one which I apply to my own life; I am
>monogamous, have had a partner of 7 years, and what I do in bed is the business of
>myself and my partner, period.)
I agree. Some gays and lesbians, however, wish for the State to
recognize their LTR by allowing them to marry. You don't state your
position on this policy, but Mr. Sullivan has vociferously. He favors
it. That could be construed as "opening up the bedroom" to others, but
I don't believe that is the CONTEXT in which Mr. Sullivan (or I, for
that matter) of others' business.
>All the while, though, Sullivan is using a domain he owns, and a screen name on his
>AOL account, to search for anonymous sexual encounters, either with a single partner
>or multiple partners, to engage in unsafe sexual activity.
I've seen these allegations before, but nothing to support them. The
best effort to create this image was a photo of some naked man's
torso. There was nothing about the torso that indicated any of the
above.
>Sullivan begins crying "foul!", completely forgetting (or seeming to forget) the
>positions he has publicly stated should be THE postions of the gay community, and his
>lack of adherence to those self-proclaimed principles. He rebuts with his "I'm a
>victim of sexual McCarthyism" column... and THEN denounces feminism as "victim
>mentality"? You don't see a contradiction/hypocrisy here?
This is a non-sequiter. So, no, I don't see anything that you seem to
see.
>There's a name for gay men who languish "in the victimhood of being gay...". It's
>called "Drama Queens." I do not associate with them; if they're unwilling to do
>something positive for themselves, and their self-esteem, I have no time for them.
Okay, if you say so. I know other gay people who are no less
"victimized" and have no association with whatever a "drama queen" is.
Again, the ad hominem doesn't advance an understanding of what it is
you're trying to convey.
>I really wish people would STOP thinking they have the knowledge of what I'm thinking
>to speak for me... and judging from some of the responses to a couple of my postings,
>there's more than our share of Emily Latella's out there in readership-land.
Mutatis mutandis, Mr. Sullivan. In fairness to all, many of the points
you seem to be making come across confused and muddled. Perhaps it's
the medium of writing on the Internet that does this. But re-read some
of your own sentential propositions and see if they make the same
sense in another's head that you think they make in yours. Almost all
I get from your posts are ad hominems, non-sequiters, and
pontifcations by you of what to call certain people. I am trying to be
fair-minded, but wrestling out your ideas is more than a cursory
effort.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
**********
Brian P. Evans
> >Victims are victims only if they choose to be. I am not a victim, nor do
> I consider
> >myself victimized. Again, I point out, I was talking about Sullivan
> using a baseless
> >arguement to get the heat off himself for his latest hypocritical actions.
>
>No, you are asserting he has an argument and he is using it to cover
>up his hypocritical actions. What hypocritical actions? What argument?
His hypocritical actions of claiming that all gay people, and gay men
especially, need to be monogamous and engage in safe sex always while
simultaneously soliciting for bareback orgies while he, himself, is HIV+.
The argument is that somehow he is not responsible for his words, that he
doesn't need to have the courage of his convictions, and that his
admonitions of irresponsible behaviour on the part of gay men don't seem to
apply to him.
> >And who's crying "victim" anyway? Check out Sullivan's response to Michael
> >Signorile's disclosure of Sullivan's hypocrisy... where Sullivan
> identifies himself
> >as a "victim of McCarthy-like practices."
>
>To argue against Nazi-feminism and its embrace of victimology doesn't
>obviate all other possible claims to being a victim. Once again Mr.
>Signorile is claimed to have disclosed Sullivan's hypocrisy, but what
>hypocrisy?
His hypocritical actions of claiming that all gay people, and gay men
especially, need to be monogamous and engage in safe sex always while
simultaneously soliciting for bareback orgies while he, himself, is HIV+.
His argument is that somehow he is not responsible for his words, that he
doesn't need to have the courage of his convictions, and that his
admonitions of irresponsible behaviour on the part of gay men don't seem
to apply to him.
>That people are using McCarthy-like tactics to blackball
>him as a hypocrite?
(*chuckle*)
I see...so when he does it to others, he's pointing out the irresponsible
behaviour that is threatening our lives in a noble attempt to gain control
over a lethal disease. But when others do it to him, they're sticking
their noses in where they don't belong.
That's called hypocrisy.
>Based on what evidence I have now, it DOES seem
>that Mr. Sullivan is the "victim" of a witch hunt against the context
>of his message rather than its substance.
(*chuckle*)
You mean calling gay men irresponsible sex fiends wasn't the substance of
his message? You mean overwhelming shame in an attempt to change dangerous
behaviour wasn't the substance of his message?
Why is he complaining when people point out that if he truly believed what
he said, it would apply to him just as much as it applied to everybody else?
>Being a victim of one thing
>doesn't preclude not being a victim of something else, and vice versa.
The only thing Sullivan is a victim of is his own big mouth. He put out a
moral position and was found that he not only didn't live up to it but also
felt that it didn't apply to him.
> >Sullivan, using his NY Times and New Republic writing positions became
> the "sex
> >police" when it came to President Clinton, and in espousing his
> viewpoints on how gay
> >men should live their lives to gain "acceptance." He very publicly, and
> constantly,
> >harped the dogma of conservatism: Sex is a private thing. Gays must
> learn to become
> >monogamous. Gays have to work to smash the image of them as pure sexual
> animals,
> >merely hopping from man to man.
>
>This is such a disprovable ad hominem it's difficult to respond. Mr.
>Sullivan enjoys writing privileges at many of the nation's prestigious
>journals and periodicals -- a consequence of his coherence and
>consistency, hardly as a member of the "sex police."
(*chuckle*)
This is such a disprovable puff piece it's quite easy to respond. Mr.
Sullivan enjoys writing privileges at many of the nation's prestigious
journals and periodicals as a direct consequence of his abrasive style,
specifically in regard to his railing against what is commonly perceived as
the oversexed behaviour of gay men.
Do you seriously think he would have the same access to such conservative
publications as he does if he were Signorille?
>THERE is a
>difference between what you and I and Mr. Sullivan do in the privacy
>of our homes and what the President of the United States does on
>government property, including his guilt of obstructing justice.
No, there isn't. The President's sex life is just as much his own business
as your sex life is your and my sex life is mine. If anything, Sullivan's
sex life is *more* a matter of public record because he made very public
statements about what everybody's sex life should resemble.
If he feels he has the right to tell others how to behave sexually, why is
he so upset when that lens is applied to him?
There's this cliche about people in glass houses and how they shouldn't
throw stones....
>Mr.
>Sullivan is only pointing out the obvious, but apparently you are
>willing to overlook these character flaws in Mr. Clinton.
I have yet to hear a single person claim that what Clinton did was good,
right, honorable, or commendable.
What has been said, however, was that what Clinton did was a matter between
him and his family and not a matter for public scrutiny. Since Clinton did
not tell people how to behave sexually, did not tell people what their
marriages should be, and did not tell people what was morally good or bad
with regard to sex, there was absolutely no reason to inquire into his sex
life.
Again, this does not mean that what Clinton did was good, right, honorable,
or commendable.
It simply means that it was none of our business.
>You seem to
>be saying Mr. Clinton can do no wrong, but Mr. Sullivan can do no
>right.
(*chuckle*)
You mean someone who rails against the perceived hypersexuality of gay men,
who claims that HIV+ people who engage in risky sex are going to kill us
all, and concludes that the reason gay people are still having the problems
they are is because of their sexual behaviour is not subject to having that
standard applied to him? That his stance is not appropriate to him? That
there is absolutely no logic that would lead one to think, "Do you live up
to your own standards that you waste no opportunity to spout from every
rooftop you can find?"
But someone who has never made any such claims is somehow fair game?
Again, this does not mean that what Clinton did was good, right, honorable,
or commendable.
It simply means it was none of our business.
>Sullivan is on record (as was Mr. Clinton) favoring marriage
>(only in different concepts),
Not just different concepts, but different reasons for why they were doing it.
So do you not think that Sullivan's words get to be applied to him,
too? Or is it only for the rest of us who are lucky to have his wisdom
inflicted.
>and Mr. Clinton professed one thing, and
>showed his contempt for what he professed by his actions with an
>intern.
Again, nobody has ever said that what Clinton did was good, right,
honorable, or commendable.
It was simply said that it was none of our business.
Sullivan, on the other hand, made sexual behaviour his cause celebre. Did
it never occur to him that someone might want to know how he managed to
live up to that ideal?
>There IS hypocrisy here, but it belongs to Mr. Clinton, not
>Mr. Sullivan.
(*chuckle*)
Clinton never told anybody how to have sex.
Sullivan did.
Why is it, then, that he is upset that someone is applying his own standard
to him?
> >All the while, though, Sullivan is using a domain he owns, and a screen
> name on his
> >AOL account, to search for anonymous sexual encounters, either with a
> single partner
> >or multiple partners, to engage in unsafe sexual activity.
>
>I've seen these allegations before, but nothing to support them.
Oh, I get it. If you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist, right?
>The
>best effort to create this image was a photo of some naked man's
>torso. There was nothing about the torso that indicated any of the
>above.
How is it you were able to see the picture but not the accompanying ad that
said in no uncertain terms what type of sexual activity Sullivan was
advertising for? The story was not that Sullivan posted semi-nude photos
of himself. The story was that Sullivan posted advertisements seeking to
have bareback sex with multiple men (or do you not think that talking about
how is "hard glutes" will "milk your cock" is somehow a euphemism for
something innocuous like a quilting bee?) That he posted a semi-nude photo
of himself alongside the advertisement was only icing on the cake that gave
some voyeuristic hooks to the story.
> >Sullivan begins crying "foul!", completely forgetting (or seeming to
> forget) the
> >positions he has publicly stated should be THE postions of the gay
> community, and his
> >lack of adherence to those self-proclaimed principles. He rebuts with
> his "I'm a
> >victim of sexual McCarthyism" column... and THEN denounces feminism as
> "victim
> >mentality"? You don't see a contradiction/hypocrisy here?
>
>This is a non-sequiter. So, no, I don't see anything that you seem to
>see.
Let's see...Sullivan declares himself to be the ultimate arbiter of sexual
behaviour, is then found out to be incapable of living up to his own
standard, and then claims that he has been wronged. He sticks his nose
into other people's behaviour, calling them killers, then engages in the
very behaviour he has just denigrated, and he has the gall to say that he's
the one that's been maligned?
> >I really wish people would STOP thinking they have the knowledge of what
> I'm thinking
> >to speak for me... and judging from some of the responses to a couple of
> my postings,
> >there's more than our share of Emily Latella's out there in readership-land.
>
>Mutatis mutandis, Mr. Sullivan. In fairness to all, many of the points
>you seem to be making come across confused and muddled.
(*chuckle*)
Just because *you* don't understand it doesn't mean the point was confused
or muddled.
It simply means *you* didn't understand it.
--
Brian P. Evans
rrh...@home.com
Eric Payne
> Forwarded by Request
>
> Please Post Widely
>
> ************************************************************
> http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=298
>
> Lesbians have ruined the gay movement?
> by Paula Martinac
> July 16, 2001
>
> Here's a pronouncement I wish I never had to hear again from any gay man:
> "Lesbian-feminists have ruined the gay movement." This was the crux of a
> recent lecture, provocatively titled "The Emasculation of Gay Politics,"
> that gay journalist Andrew Sullivan gave in New York. Statements that
> Sullivan made and that I've heard different versions of from other gay men
> suggest that they are willfully ignoring the important role feminism could
> play in their lives.
It looks like Sullivan thinks he's found a way to get the spotlight off his
recent hypocritical behavior by "re-creating" a debate that was meaningless the
first time around, and serves only to make the gay and lesbian community weaker.
I'm a gay man, but in my experience:
1. Lesbians, as opposed to gay men, seem to take a longer period of time before
forming a domestic partnership with someone they're dating. I've also come to
believe a lesbian partnership has a substantially longer life-span than that of
gay men (on average).
2. Lesbians seem to be more level-headed than their gay-male counterparts. It
seems a majority of gay, public, organizations have lesbian spokespersons; it's
been my experience lesbians are less likely to get "caught up" in some dramatic,
histrionic display and more likely to plant their feet, roll up their sleeves,
and get something done.
Then again, starting the "lesbians have ruined the gay movement" canard could be
something Sullivan truly believes... I mean, when was the last time you saw a
lesbian pontificating monogamy, responsibility and conservatism in the press,
while all the time advertising on public and private web-sites for an anonymous,
or a multiple anonymous, unsafe sexual encounter?
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
**********
Eric Payne
Heersink wrote:
>Eric Payne <jeric...@home.com> writes:
>
>>Victims are victims only if they choose to be. I am not a victim, nor do I consider
>>myself victimized. Again, I point out, I was talking about Sullivan using a baseless
>>arguement to get the heat off himself for his latest hypocritical actions.
>
>No, you are asserting he has an argument and he is using it to cover
>up his hypocritical actions. What hypocritical actions? What argument?
>
>>And who's crying "victim" anyway? Check out Sullivan's response to Michael
>>Signorile's disclosure of Sullivan's hypocrisy... where Sullivan identifies himself
>>as a "victim of McCarthy-like practices."
>
>To argue against Nazi-feminism and its embrace of victimology doesn't
>obviate all other possible claims to being a victim. Once again Mr.
>Signorile is claimed to have disclosed Sullivan's hypocrisy, but what
>hypocrisy? That people are using McCarthy-like tactics to blackball
>him as a hypocrite? Based on what evidence I have now, it DOES seem
>that Mr. Sullivan is the "victim" of a witch hunt against the context
>of his message rather than its substance. Being a victim of one thing
>doesn't preclude not being a victim of something else, and vice versa.
Blahblah. Blahblahblahblahblah.
<snip of remainder which went off on very diverse tangents from the
original post in order to sanctify Andrew Sullivan and demonize anyone
who disagreed with Sullivan's sanctification.>
Look, I don't know why you find the need to idolize Mr. Sullivan so
much, but here are the facts (facts which Sullivan, himself, neither
disputed nor confirmed, initially, but later confirmed "in part"). See
if you can follow along, okay?
1. Andrew Sullivan has been using his public position to attempt to
regulate the sexual activities of others; in this case gay men and
ex-President Clinton. Andrew Sullivan has been using his public
position to tell gays they MUST be monogamous; they MUST be private in
their relations and they MUST be mainstream in order to gain
"acceptance."
2. All the while Andrew Sullivan is using his public position to
attempt to regulate the sexual activities of others, Andrew Sullivan
is, privately, advertising via the Internet for single- and
multiple-partner anonymous, unsafe sex.
3. Andrew Sullivan's private activities are revealed, publicly,
initially as a small throw away "puff piece" in both a NY and a
Washington, DC, gay "throw-aways" (And, no, that's not a term of
defamation, before you go off on another tangent. A "throw-away" is a
newspaper or magazine, generally distributed for free, that is meant
to be nothing more than something to glance at... not read
voraciously).
4. Michael Singorile is not the first reporter to break the story; nor
is he the second. What he is, though, is the first journalist who
reveals the story, and he behaves as a journalist is expected to do;
he investigates. Using Internic, he determines the website offering a
semi-nude pic, and a description of desired activities, is owned by
Andrew Sullivan. Interviewing some of the persons who responded to the
ad(s), it was confirmed the poster on the website, and on AOL, is
Michael Sullivan. Only when three independent sources (at least)
verify the validity of Sullivan's identity is the story published.
5. Initially, Sullivan offers no response; that later changes to "what
I do is my business and no one else's." When Sullivan is publicly
chastised for the disparity between his very public stance and his
private behavior, he claims to be a "victim of McCarthy" tactics.
Apparently, Sullivan sees no conflict in his public stance of being
the final arbiter of sexual activity - primarily homosexual, but in
the case of former President Clinton, heterosexual as well - and his
own actions of anonymous, single- or multiplepartnered unsafe sexual
activity.
Sullivan does acknowledge, finally, he was the advertiser, and seeks
to justify his actions by saying he sought only "other HIV-positives"
for such activity. Yet when reminded of the theory of "reinfection" -
a theory in which Sullivan had previously, publicly, agreed - Sullivan
denounces the idea of "reinfection" asking for cites and case studies
to prove a "reinfection" rate. Again, we're simply supposed to not
remember, or not call Sullivan to task on, Sullivan's public position
on the validity of HIV reinfection rates and his usage of the
"reinfection" idea to bolster his "monogamous/safe-sex only"
pronouncement.
Not to mention the negotiations in which Sullivan must have been
involved at the same time as the revelation of his private life being
so out of synch with his public edicts: Only weeks after the
revelation, one of Sullivan's privately-owned websites is suddenly
being sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures on of
the more commonly used HIV medications.
It's been a month since the revelations, Sullivan has, pretty much,
laid low and been innocuous in his statements. Now, it's as if he's
feeling the itch to be the Sullivan of old... but knows how quickly he
would be revealed as a hypocrite to suddenly begin spouting those
canards. Instead, he's creating a controversy where none exists:
Blaming the lack of momentum of the gay movement on lesbians and
feminism.
You know what I believe?
The "gay movement" is set back more, and loses far greater momentum
because of, people who set themselves up as "leaders" who, when out of
the spotlight, are actually anchors.
And, BTW, in your response to my original posting, you pulled the
sexual antics of President Clinton into the spotlight, stating his
activites were "wrong," and using those to obfuscate the activities of
Sullivan.
I don't think you'd find anyone (except maybe another philanderer) who
would publicly embrace Mr. Clinton's activities as being "right" in
any sense of the word.
But, Mr. Clinton's activities were between Mr. and Mrs. Clinton,
period. He was a married man who got caught getting a blow-job, at his
place of employment, from a woman other than his wife.
Both a quick and thorough read of the Constitution reveals there is no
clause for termination of employment based on a sexual indiscretion.
Hell, if there were, the very Congressmen who very publicly tried and
convicted Mr. Clinton would, themselves, have been removed from
office, as each and every one of them either voluntarily - or
involuntarily due to press revelations - admitted to also having had
sexual relations outside of their marriage. One even admitted to
fathering a child, as a result of this "youthful indiscretion," said
"indiscretion" having occurred when the Congressman was over the age
of 40.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sullivan's argument is that the feminist credo of victimization is BAD
>for gay men. Read the statement carefully. He's not criticizing
>feminism, per se. He's criticizing that element of feminism, often
>referred to as "Nazi-feminism," which maintains women and men are
>"victims" in the endless queue of victimhood. It's the Left's
>equivalent to the Right's Commies theory.
The term "FemiNazi", along with the defamation of everything
considered "liberal" is a ploy of the Religious Reich nutcases. This
includes accusing those who speak with outrage against abuse, as
"victimizers", in order to trivialize their plea. (BTW, they are also
the good folks who coined the term "heterophobia". The RR is clever,
if nothing else.)
>I happen to agree with Sullivan's view that making
>homosexuals feel they are a "victim" of something solves nor resolves
>nothing. It's like a pity party of one. Yes, gays and lesbians have
>known abuse, enmity, and discrimination, but so have the Irish,
>Italians, Blacks, Asians, etc. What good is served by languishing in
>the victimhood of being gay or a lesbian?
The other minorities you mention, have already achieved recognition by
society at large, for the unfair victimizing of their people. Gay
people have yet to achieve that...thus we must continue making the
public aware of their continued abuses towards gays, until their
consciousness has been raised enough for them to assist gays with
winning equality.
This is also a matter of raising the consciousness of more of our own
gay sisters and brothers...that they may know when abuses occur, and
do something about it, that will lessen the oppression. Unfortunately,
just as the word "liberal" has been badly poisoned by the Religious
Reich, so has the word "victim". But that does not mean those terms
are trivial and bad themselves...it only means that many people have
been cowed by the Fascist-style brainwash so typical of the brutal
right-wing regime.
The victimization game is being played by Christian Fundies, not by
gays who are genuine victims of horrid abuse. They slam us down by
accusing us of false victimhood, then revise the issue of
victimization to put *them in the limelight of the supposedly
long-suffering Christians horrendously attacked by gay people and
their liberal straight supporters.
>Some argue it gives strength to the oppressed; I think it keeps the
>oppressed in their oppression. I think this correlates with Sullivan's
>view.
A terribly simplistic conclusion, to say the least. While avoiding the
word "victim" we nonetheless remain suffering great and widespread
abuse for our gay spirit. Indeed, we are victims with a capital "V",
and word games will not change this one iota. In fact, they only serve
to blind us from the enemy and her tactics.
I find Sullivan's proclamation against lesbians abhorrent, as it is
maliciously divisive at a time when we need to band together more than
ever before in our modern history. I am so ashamed that a gay man has
proposed such misogynistic drivel; apparantly for his own vainglory,
and certainly not for the glory of our struggles.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible