I’m also not so forgiving of celebrities who use offensive language and follow with some sort of caveat about how their comments are ok because they support gay marriage ala The Millionaire Matchmaker’s Patti Stanger, or Kings of Leon’s quick decision to tell a gay man to get a manicure and buy a bra, followed with an “I’m sorry 4 anyone that misconstrued my comments as homophobic or misogynistic. I’m so not that kind of person” tweet.

In my experience, classroom teachers don’t tolerate language like that from students of any age. Where should our tolerance lie as adults? As a student teacher, I took off points for students who used curse words or offensive words in their fiction writing, in classroom discussion, I corrected them aloud.  Teachers help young people learn respect, develop socially acceptable habits and gain understanding of historical, social and literary contexts of modern times. They also restrict aggressive, violent or inappropriate behavior. Who does this for adults? The police might step in for violent behavior, but what about the smaller offenses? Should we  make (theoretical) citizen arrests? Should we take to the airwaves (tweet-waves?) every time we hear an unjust word thrown? Should we boycott celebrities? Should we confront our families?

Mel Gibson: King of Racist Tirades

What do we gain from speaking out?

Enemies and fans alike have jumped on the backs (or off the bandwagons) of Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Tracy Morgan for their racists or homophobic tirades. In some cases celebrities issue apologies – most likely because those fans pay the bills, not because they are truly sorry, or because they don’t actually agree with the offensive statements they made. Refusing to see the movies/buy the albums/ read the books of a person who has used offensive language sends a powerful message that ignorance or closed-mindedness will not be tolerated from anyone – but a lot of people think the two things are unrelated.  Do Mel Gibson’s racist tirades stop you from enjoying Lethal Weapon?

Digital courage Vs. face-to face courage

A lot of us replaced the tequila-courage of college with internet-courage of adulthood– even the most mild mannered folks might take the opportunity to speak out on an issue on Facebook or Twitter that they would never broach in “real life”- condoning a friend for reposting political or celebrity hate-speech, or calling out @Celebrity for being #homophobic or #racist on Twitter, but what happens in face-to-face situations? How do we react when a friend, colleague or supervisor comments about how “retarded” a call in a football game was, or that how “gay” it is that a buddy bailed on happy hour. Can we muster the courage to call out that sort of language face-to-face? Do our efforts make a difference?

What about Freedom of Speech?

While us liberal, PC, uptight, buzz-killers are out there reminding people that suggesting African Americans only eat fried chicken and watermelon is offensive, there’s a whole colony of commentators gathered around talking about Freedom of Speech. “What happened to the First Amendment?” they love to snarkily ask. These questioners are right – the government doesn’t have the right to restrict speech, but when you are a public persona (a politician, actor, musician, etc) whose career relies on the support, financial and other, of fans or voters – it might be wise to ensure that your Freedom of Speech doesn’t ricochet off your angry fans and hit you square in the face.  When an individual receives 1000 emails, or Facebook posts condemning their language or behavior, that’s Freedom of Speech, too, right?

A Focus on Education

Its easy for us to destroy someone’s reputation on the internet for offensive behavior (::cough cough:: Rick  Santorum), or to embarrass someone in a bar for using language that might not be PC, but its important to recognize that some people don’t actually know better. Sure, Santorum isn’t one of them – he earned his internet reputation for standing strong in his hateful views – but there are bound to be people who honestly don’t think that saying “retarded” is offensive if they aren’t talking about a person, or who think because their minority friends use certain slang words that everyone agrees with their usage. Think about it like our underpaid and overworked educators try to do with our kids – if there is a teaching moment, take it. Ask why the word or phrase was used, what that person thinks it means – explain the origin, or who it can offend. Sure its awkward, and can be embarrassing, but if there’s a chance to create a wizened advocate rather than a smeared reputation – its worth a try.

–

How sensitive are you to language? Have you ever boycotted a celebrity for expressing offensive views (intentionally or not)? Do you Tweet/comment on offensive language you encounter on the web? Do you correct friends, family, or colleagues when you think they’ve said something offensive?

Favored sports teams might be a suitable topic that inspires playful rivalry (especially if one of you doesn’t really care about sports), but, to some, the religious and political beliefs of your potential mate are defining characteristics in the calculations of your potential for success.

Light installation of Robert Stadler

Lets imagine:
As you share a drink and an appetizer with a person you met on OKCupid, the banter might be light and airy, the preferred age of cheddar matching, the eye-contact solid without being creepy. You might begin to feel something for the person sitting across from you, as they tell stories about the delights of being an accountant, or deliberate on the social scene during their undergraduate tenure at State School University. You both liked Lord of the Rings, but not as much as Harry Potter. You agree that Brad Pitt has become a real actor now, and that Mary-Louise Parker only gets more beautiful as she ages. Kite Runner was good, but Three Cups of Tea really loses its flavor once it came out that Greg Mortenson might be a liar.

It’s going really well.

After a couple drinks, your date informs you that they are having an awesome time, but can’t stay out too much later.

“My church is way up North, and I have to be there by 9.”

Or perhaps:

“I’d love to hang out a little longer, but I got tickets to a Glen Beck rally down-state, and my sister and I are leaving at 6 AM.”

Did this charming watcher of Weeds just mention a Churchal obligation? How can a person who enjoyed the magic of Harry Potter indulge in the pure evil of Glenn Beck?

Perhaps these comments don’t bother you at all. Maybe you are the kind of person who thinks that an individual’s political or religious views are just one tiny aspect of their whole being. You think, nothing they said was judgmental of my beliefs, just statements of theirs. Or are you the kind of person who sees differences in religion or politics defining factors in your relationships?

If you run in a liberal or conservative circle, perhaps you often meet people who have similar views to you, but what about online dating? I tend to think, on a lot of levels, that opposites attract , but are there certain ideological things that could keep you away from someone who otherwise you are really attracted to?

Would you date someone who was a passionate believer or supporter of a religious or political group that conflicted strongly with your own beliefs? Is this the type of information that should be divulged on the embryonic stages of a relationship?

Reality television.

When MTV’s  The Real World began its edited broadcast of 7 strangers residing together in a house in 1992, it was clear that their actions would leave the world of televised entertainment changed forever.  The intimacy, the honesty and the grit were impossible to recreate in small screen fiction, and the viewer addiction was dangerous.

Fast forward 20 years and it’s impossible to click through even a few television channels without landing on a reality show. In fact, the variety has increased to a level where we don’t even think of the shows as being of the “reality” genre – they are just TV now. There are still “sharing a house on camera ” shows like The Real World and Big Brother,  but there are also “get help” shows like Intervention and Hoarders, “warning/encouraging bad behavior” shows like 16 And Pregnant,  as well as animal shows, wedding shows, buying/selling house shows, survival shows and plastic surgery shows. There are even shows with no detectable premise (Keeping up with the Kardashians).The list is endless. Today, it could be said that getting your own reality show is one form of Making It in America.  And if that’s true, maybe this trend has brought one gift to the gay community – a slow yet steady increase in visibility.  Gay reality stars have been making a serious impact on visibility of LGBTQ issues, and maybe even acceptance as they stream into American households every night.

The beginning of this impact can be traced to The Real World’s third season castmate Pedro Zamora. The openly gay and HIV positive Zamora brought LGBTQ issues and AIDS awareness into millions of American homes in the early 90s, a time when we were still not talking about openly about homosexuality and certainly not AIDS.  Diagnosed HIV positive when he was only 17, he auditioned for the cast of the show intentionally to spread more information about AIDS awareness. Zamora passed away from HIV related illness just days after the final episode of the season was broadcast. He was 22.

Unfortunately, not all LGBT representatives can be as admirable as Zamora. Sometimes reality shows reinforce negative stereotypes, like Patti Stanger’s attempt to pair up a gay millionaire on Bravo’s Millionaire Matchmaker (read AfterElton’s POV and AfterEllen’s POV on this episode) or LOGO’s The A-List which features a cast of selected stereotypes of gay men, and, as the Washington Post commented in 2010, doesn’t make a great social study but feels more like depressing voyeurism.

More often in recent years, a reality show might feature participants who just happen to be gay, thereby helping to normalize homosexuality. On TLC’s Baby’s First Day a lesbian couple is featured celebrating the birth of their child.  Gay couples get married on wedding shows or buy houses on house hunting shows. (Look honey! Those gays like bamboo flooring, just like us!”)

We have a revolving door of gay competitors on shows like Project Runway, Top Chef, America’s Next Top Model, The Amazing Race, and even a few on American Idol. These shows do a lot to normalize LGBTQ folks. Their sexual orientation comes second to their design ideas, knife skills, vocal talent or travel smarts. Americans root for them for these talents, and maybe sometimes forget that they aren’t hetero. They aren’t gay chefs or gay models – just chefs and models.

We still don’t have a same-sex couple on the US version of Dancing with the Stars (they do in Israel), which is broadcast into 10 millions homes a week, but the cast might be ready for it.

The popularity of reality TV shows might be a result of a lack of creativity of TV execs, our own creepy desire to peer into someone else’s lives, or our desperate wish to feel better about ourselves by focusing other batty people, but they might also be a subversive tactic in the LGBTQ fight for normalcy.

What are the best and worst representations you have seen of LGBTQ folks on reality TV?

I read a lot about human evolution, specifically how our ancestors evolved into modern humans and how we determine the dividing point between animals and humans. Some say the change came when our ancestors began to create art, others say when they formed family structures and began supporting the adults and children within those structures.

We often think about species of the past, such as the Neanderthals, as being so extremely far removed from our modern, advanced species. They did go extinct, after all. We picture hulking, stooping beasts, dragging women around by the hair, swinging clubs, void of advanced intellect. We imagine that they were did not survive because they could not evolve and adapt like Homo sapiens – they could not modernize. We actually know better than that Hollywood dramatized image of stupid cave-dwellers now. We know that Neanderthals were much like us, so much so that there is genetic proof that some of our ancestors interacted and bred with them.

I was shocked to learn that many modern day humans have Neanderthal DNA (although I found it somewhat humorous that the only ethnic group that didn’t interbreed with Neanderthals are peoples descended from Africa, people who had suffered from generations of unfair accusations of being “less modern” or “more primitive” which was largely at the root of slavery in the United States.) But, what I was more shocked to think about is how even in our modern society there is this constant steam of political and social issues that reflect a prehistoric attitude. I cannot understand how some of these beliefs have not been left in the dust with our Neanderthal cousins – like the discussion about whether or not women can make their own decisions.

Apparently Michelle Bachman can’t – or perhaps chooses not to. She said in 2006 that her husband told her to get a degree in tax law, even though she didn’t want to, and then to run for Congress, and she had to do it. He’s her husband and she should be submissive. This is a woman who wants to be President of the United States, but believes its her duty to be submissive to her husband. Sooo…why isn’t he running for President?

Also reactions to the new test that can determine the sex of an unborn baby at 7 weeks. People are seriously acting like this new test will cause women to abort babies left and right because they aren’t happy with the sex of this child – so we shouldn’t allow this test because it will cause women to go abortion crazy. A woman who wants to have a child will have a child regardless of sex, and a woman who does not want to have a child would terminate regardless of sex. These people are pretending that the new test doesn’t have an advantage in finding sex-linked diseases. In places like China or India, where often having a girl child is unfavorable – the test won’t make a difference. That child will be a girl or a boy at 7 weeks, 12 weeks and 30 weeks.

Presidential hopeful and overall jackass Rick Perry passed the law that required doctors to show a woman a sonogram and make her listen to her babies heart beat before obtaining an abortion, as thought women who are making the difficult decision of abortion doesn’t know what’s going on inside her body. Some how the state governor knows better than she does whether or not she wants to carry her baby to term.

How is it possible that attitudes like this continue to exist in our “modern” society? Primitive thoughts and behaviors that perpetuate a belief that women cannot think for themselves, cannot make their own decisions, must be submissive to their husbands and on and on, are beyond our worst creative renderings of the uncivilized Neanderthals. Maybe that 1-4% of Neanderthal blood is keeping us in the past, or maybe they understood equality better than some Americans do. Its hard to tell which.

We remember when it was more common to frame women as helpless and men as caretakers, like in this commercial from a bygone era, but times have changed…right?

Photo Credit: ArtisticZen on WikiCommons

Everyone was talking excitedly when you came walking over to the buzzing cluster of girls standing close together near the lockers. You hadn’t had a sleepover with Kim, Sara or Patti since you got bumped into honors English and you all didn’t have the same lunch hour, but you were excited to catch up with them between passing periods. When Kim’s eyes, lit with laughter, caught yours as you approached, she grabbed Patti by the hand. You felt the mood change immediately, but didn’t know what to say. Feeling brave, you just came out with it. “Where you guys talking about me?” They weren’t, they told you truthfully. They weren’t talking about you at all; they were talking about the party that you weren’t invited to.

For most of us, if we ever had to endure this devastating realization, it has been more than a decade since. For me? It happened 2 weeks ago; actually three times this summer. Much to my disappointment, there were no lockers around, but Facebook, email and text messages create that same sort of “girls crowded together giggling” ambiance so much so that I feel like I might have 29-11-82 scrawled on the back of my hand with a purple pen. My best girl friends from high school, who’s changing friendships I have always been glad to hold, have not been shy about mentioning their exciting birthday gatherings that I haven’t been invited to.

I’m aware that things are changing between us as they get married, move out of the city, and settle into serious careers. I know this because I’ve attended their wedding showers, bachelorette parties and weddings. In light of those experiences I’m starting to wonder – if I was following the same path, if I was getting married and moving out to the burbs would our friendships have lasted?

Am I now only a wedding guest, like some botox-faced second cousin in an iridescent dress, and not a best friend, 30th birthday party guest?

Has my non-traditional (gay) life trajectory finally split us up?

I’ve spent a lot of time educating and arguing that queer and straight people are the same: that our love and our relationships and our lifestyles are the same. But now I’m wondering if even my best allies believe that. I feel like I’ve gone back to being “other” after so many years of coming closer to feeling like we were all the same. We have never had a serious conversation about this subject, but once, a couple of years ago, one of my best high school friends said she felt like while I was growing distant with her I seemed to only want to hang out with my “gay friends.” While the implication that I’d choose friends based on who they sleep with is ridiculous, I have to wonder now if as the bonds I share with women who are enjoying marriage, the financial stability of a two person household, and children are stretching and thinning, the bonds I share with those in a situation more similar to mine — that is, connected to our sexual orientation– are strengthening. Are my friendships with queer friends still strong because are lives are staying on a similar path?

Can I still maintain friendships with straight women if I don’t get married, move to the suburbs or have children? Is heteronormativity ruining my friendships?

What does interest me is that fact that I was 19 when I had my first real girlfriend, so this year I am marking my ten-year anniversary of Queerdom. As I’ve mentioned before in this column, I wasn’t a child or a young person who ever considered the possibility that I was queer. It was not until college that any of those feelings surfaced, and I worked out pretty quickly that I was mostly into girls.

It’s just sort of hard to believe that for far more than half of my dating life I have been dating women, and because I consider myself to be queer and not necessarily lesbian, this statistic is some how surprising. It was more than ten years ago when I last seriously considered that I would have a male partner, that I would have a hetero-normative lifestyle, that I would be “just like” my sister, brother or best friends. For 10 years I have been openly queer.

At this point, coming out memories, or fears of holding hands in public, or worry about being out at work are distant. To me, being queer is as a part of me is having dark hair or wearing glasses – some things just are. This is what makes it even more difficult for me to understand how I can still have such an awkward relationship with anyone and everyone blood related to me due to the fact that I date women.

My family and I aren’t close enough to share personal details of our lives – I never talked to my mother about high school boy friends or my sister about crazy college exploits. Or my brother about anything. We co-exist pleasantly enough, on a surface level, a few times a year even though we now all live in the same city. My sister and I are actually friends, have a lot in common, and, I think, like each other even more as we have gotten older, but it has always been commonplace for me to leave my relationships in the shadows that sometimes I forget that that isn’t normal.

They absolutely know that I date women. I told them a long time ago. They were aware when I lived with my girlfriend in DC, they were aware when we broke up. I refer to my current girlfriend frequently in conversation but never a question is asked about her, or about us, or about the future. Isn’t your family supposed to ask about marriage and babies? Isn’t that annoying nature in the job description of family members?

I am the type of person who would be happily interviewed at a Pride parade about being a part of the gay community. I have been writing a weekly column for TNG for more than 2 years. I am in a serious relationship with a woman. But I have never brought a girl home for the holidays. I have never given a joint gift to my mother from my girlfriend and I. I have never talked to my family members about the possibility of marriage or having children. In ten years of being queer, I have some how managed to be both extremely outspoken and uncomfortably quiet about my sexual orientation.

Should I be content to be a confident queer woman to the world and a distant daughter and sister to my family? Is it my responsibility to try to work on these relationships, or do I just get over it?

“So it’s you who’s been stealing my razors,” she said.

I looked down at my legs, one covered in blood and but both freshly shaven, and realized that this was the first “growing up” conversation my mother and I had ever had, and, it turned out, was one of the only I’d ever get.

I had started shaving my legs the previous school year – in the 6^th grade – because we had mandatory gym class everyday and even though I didn’t wear a bra yet or have my period, wearing shorts with the other girls required shaved legs. I started shaving because the other girls did. Fitting in is the goal, right?

Later, I met women who didn’t shave for different reasons. Hippies who wanted to be as natural as possible, lesbians who identified with more “masculine” characteristics or behaviors, feminists who felt that leg-shaving was something women did because they were bending to a standard of beauty set by magazines, advertisements, society, and, ultimately, men.

Even in times when I have been engrossed in feminist literature, or have argued principles of beauty and societal pressure and misogyny, I’ve never considered not shaving.  I don’t think I would date a woman who didn’t agree with me on that point. For me, shaving is as important as showering.  But why do we do it?

Leg and body shaving has a long and winding history from Egypt and Greece to today’s massive market for body hair removal products. Most actual and internet scholars  agree that shaving in the U.S. became common place when hemlines on dresses became shorter and sleeveless “flapper” dresses came into vogue. More or less, some advertisers took this moment, around 1915, to take advantage of a weakness and began shaming women into shaving. (Hairlessness is beautiful!!)  It seems like nobody thought that body hair was wrong until the magazines started telling us. Which is pretty much exactly how people develop body image problems – because magazines tell us what is beautiful and when we compare ourselves to their benchmarks most of us fail.

Today, people shave their bodies for a multitude of reasons aside from fashion or personal preference. Cyclists often shave their legs because leg hair makes road rash worse and takes longer to heal. Swimmers, even at the high school age, hold shaving parties before swim meets. The kids who are really good shave their bodies for speed – the rest of the team members grab a razor for solidarity. Drag Queens or Kings may shave, or not shave, as a part of their alternate persona.

Body hair is one of those things that homophobics mention in that cliché explanation about why its “Ok” or “Hot” for two women to hook up and not for men. The classic comment goes something like “Two chicks making out is all sexy and smooth, two dudes making out is like all hairy and gross.” Yes. I like the smoothness of women…but if hetero guys like the smoothness of women so much maybe they should shave their bodies and give their women the same courtesy. Does smoothness or softness play a role in who we are attracted to? Is body hair “masculine”?

Some women who identify strongly with traditionally masculine traits – short hair and men’s clothing – still shave, but frequently very effeminate men don’t. While men and women both desire slimmer bodies, nice teeth and clear skin – why has body shaving remained primarily a standard for women?

Guys, do you shave your legs or underarms?
Girls, do you reject this practice? Why?

Men who sleep with men – would you be bothered if your man chose to be hairless?
Women who sleep with women – would you complain if your gal quit shaving all together?

Photo Credit: Wikicommons

The slippery slope logic of modern reasoning has provided ample cud for conservatives and the religious to chew on for decades. Marriage equality defenders have argued vehemently against the suggestion that obtaining marriage equality is the first step in the inevitable degradation of our country’s moral fiber, but for some reason this “logic” always seems to come back up. The logic is as follows: The legalization of “gay marriage” destroys the “definition of marriage” as a union between one man and one woman, kicking open the door to allow the legalization of pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy.

I’d guess that the majority of Americans abhor these acts, which is why it is a problem when people like Catholic Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, warn us that marriage equality in New York is the “latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, [and] that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

Comments like this cause people who might otherwise defend marriage equality to rethink about what sort of Pandora’s box they might be opening that allows old ladies to marry their cats.

Among the Just Say No to Expanding the Definition of Marriage folks, is a small minority of dissenters. These folks support this imaginary Pandora’s Box result and hope to benefit from it. Luckily, most of these arguments are weak, at best. It’s easy remind NAMBLA supporters that a child is not a consenting individual and thus cannot make the decision to engage in a relationship with an adult any more than he or she can vote or join the US military.  And it’s illegal. Very illegal.

The same logic model can be shared with the fear mongers who try to convince Americans that legal bestiality is swift on the heels of DOMA’s repeal. Animals can’t provide consent, so there is much doubt that a sex with animals case is moving into the Supreme court any time soon.

Debating these ignorant prophecies has always been easy for me – because to me the difference between two consenting adults of any gender and an adult and a child/turtle seeking a marriage license is pretty darn clear – but when I read of the recent lawsuit from a famous polygamist it was harder for me to come to a firm conclusion.

As gay marriage rights activists, we support ourselves on the raft that there is no “definition of marriage” to defend. We rally because two men can be incredible parents to a child and because in a sea of non-traditional, blended and broken families, gay parents might be even more stable than the families of the other neighborhood kids. We stand behind marriage equality because what we do in our bedrooms is none of anyone’s business. Because we are consenting adults who deserve equal rights under the law.

The lawsuit, filed by the star of the popular TLC  reality TV show Sister Wives, Kody Brown, “will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses”  (New York Times).

So, really this is just a man and a few women living together in a house raising children. What’s really so illegal about that? They aren’t asking for polygamy to be legalized – they are asking for their private business (sited as “unconstitutional intrusions on the ‘intimate conduct’ of consenting adults” in Lawrence v. Texas) to be kept private.

I personally have no interest in engaging in a polygamous union, or anything of the sort.

Part of me also fears the prominence of misogyny in a single male, multiple female household – but no marriage, partnership or relationship is free from that possibility.

I know that most polygamists are Morm0n, and that acknowledging the act is akin to governmentally condoning a religious belief, but we’ve never restricted Catholic or Christian rites or traditions governmentally. In fact, I think we have an amendment about that.

Maybe I’m just getting more liberal as I age, but I can’t really find a strong argument against Kody Brown.

Can you?

c. Wikimedia Commons

The area of Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood nicknamed Boystown has evolved over time into a gay Mecca. It is a part of the city where men holding hands on the street is commonplace, and most businesses proudly display HRC or rainbow stickers in the windows. It is the home to the annual Chicago Gay Pride Parade. Gay bars and clubs are a part of the draw, but the neighborhood is also home to a beautiful LGBT community center that offers meeting space, programming and events. Unfortunately, for the same reasons that make Boystown a great place to visit, this gay watering hole is host to much more serious LGBT related issues.

Although summer in Chicago is notoriously plagued by gun violence, often this sort of crime is centered on the city’s South side. This summer has seen a surge in crime in Boystown and many people are blaming the growing LGBT resources for drawing more young people to the neighborhood who hit the bars and then loiter around street corners and parking lots all night long, and, it seems, sometimes get violent. These folks are from the far North and far South sides of the city, two areas connected by the Red Line train that stops conveniently in Boystown, and are majority African-American.

This simple fact – that a surge in crime has become linked with a rise in African-American presence – has changed the situation from a safety issue to a race issue.

Suddenly a call end the violence is translated into rich white people demanding the blacks go home.

This neighborhood is the only place in “diverse” Chicago with a place for LGBT people. A portion of this group is also homeless LGBT teens and young adults who flock to the neighborhood because they have no where else to go. Historically, the neighborhood welcomes them. It was, after all, created as a place of acceptance.

I read about the violence in Boystown every time I pick up the paper, but I’m also woken up every Saturday night to screaming, fighting and red and blue flashing lights. I am not exaggerating. I live across the street from a 24 Dunkin Donuts and, in the last two months, not a weekend night has gone by without witnessing a fist fight with my own eyes. It is scary. I don’t want to walk home alone late at night – a comfort I have taken for granted before. In addition to the stabbings, I’ve read about frequent break-ins and cars vandalized, not to mention the street is littered with trash and broken glass each morning when I leave for work.

This problem in Boystown isn’t a gay thing, and it isn’t a black thing. Violence is the problem. Residents of Lakeview need to remember that we are lucky to live in such an LGBT-friendly place, and that we want it to stay that way – not start rejecting individuals who seek safety and community on our streets.

What can Chicago do about this problem? Sure, we can increase police presence in the summer months, add cameras to our street corners, and prosecute criminals. But that won’t solve the bigger problem. We need to build resources for LGBT minorities and homeless young people in other parts of the city. We need to spread the word that being gay isn’t just a white thing. We need to provide more support in our schools and communities to provide alternatives to violence. We need to improve our educational systems.

The young black folks having a few beers and getting into fights on the street corners of Boystown aren’t the problem. They are the result. Maybe Chicago is the problem.

I want to use that word because it conjures images of Paris in the 1920s, rather than words like nerd or geek which have the unending pejorative context of a 7^th grade locker room confrontation. But what does “intellectual” mean?

I always fell in with the “smart kids” growing up, because I did theatre, read a lot, and didn’t drink, but I wasn’t one of them. I already felt weird, like I didn’t fit in anywhere, and while I was almost a ”smart kid,” my sense of otherness was hard to deny, and it didn’t feel right. I wasn’t really smart enough to be one of them, and I struggled to find the right place for me.

Of course, as one gets older, and moves around, and makes group after group of new friends, the lines that divide jocks, nerds and goths begin to blur. The groups still exist, but individuals are able to float back and forth between groups, and often pass in their adopted group.

Intellectual is a nice word to claim because of its relationship to artists and thinkers, but I’m not a Fitzgerald, Hemingway or Stein. I’m not a serious artist, or even a serious writer. I feel a little lame about my MA when I’m in the same room with my JD brother and PhD sister.

But what am I?

My cubical is decked out with dinosaurs. I like documentaries and would prefer to be in a museum than anywhere else on earth. I get really excited when I talk about politics or science or literature, but I’m also extremely social and love concerts and cocktails. Not nerdy enough to be a nerd, not cool enough to be cool.

Over the 4^th of July weekend, I traveled up to Wisconsin to spend a few days among a conglomeration of friends accumulated over the last 10 years who are all connected to each other through schools and jobs and relationships. A nice mix.

As I tipped back my 4^th or 6^th cocktail of the evening, my abs aching from hours of laughing, we joked about how we had come together from six states to drink. I chuckled at how true the statement was: finding friends who like to (binge) drink isn’t as easy as you get older, but through my slightly blurred vision I was starting to see something else we had in common.

In a group of queer/queer-friendly/queer knowledgeable, highly educated individuals, our conversations ping-ponged from movie quotes and embarrassing stories to preferred gender pronouns, dinosaurs (which may have mostly been me) and Higher Education theory.

These people, playing drinking games in the middle of the afternoon, making jokes about the Virgin birth – these are the intellectuals. Somewhere in our nebulous early twenties, we moved from being nerdy to being intellectual. While New Glarus beers and games of “Cheers Governor” might not hold the same romance as whiskey and expatriates talking politics, a wild weekend in Wisconsin with people like these had a lot in common with a Parisian Salon.

In addition to being happy that I was with great friends, great beers and great conversation, I was happy to know that the art of the Salon hasn’t been lost. Happy to know that intellectuals still gather to share ideas and toss back a couple of cold ones,  just like Fitzgerald, Hemmingway and Stein, and to know that I might actually be one of them.

Photo Credit: Katy Vertigan

In the blinding rainbow of our excitement about marriage equality in New York, let’s not forgot that there are more frightening opponents to face,  just waiting in the shadows.

Although several candidates have officially declared, and some have officially declined bids – there are still several individuals speculated to announce their run for President representing the Righ. You pretty much just need to have written a book with the word “America” in the title to be considered for a GOP candidate these days. We may have settled into easiness of a life with a democratic president, but there is an army approaching, hoping to “take back America” in 2012.

We have to know the enemy.

Here are just a few of the candidates who will specifically aim to fight against LGBT rights.

Michele Bachman – Defending marriage is on Bachmann’s list of priorities.  She also believes schools should teach intelligent design because “there is reasonable doubt on both sides” of the evolution argument. Is there?

Herman Cain is against legalizing same sex marriage, supports DOMA and believes homosexuality is sinful and a choice.

Tim Pawlenty believes marriage to be between a man and a woman and supports DOMA.

Mitt Romney has famously gone sort of back and forth on gay issues, and currently doesn’t state any specific opinions on his campaign website, but it’s easy to imagine that he would stand behind DOMA and other laws in order to keep a conservative base happy.  Kathy Belge at About.com has a summary of his record on gay marriage.

Newt Gingrich might not be as hard line on gay issues anymore, but in 2010 he donated 1/3 of the $850,000 raised by antigay groups to boot the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled for gay marriage out of office.

And these folks are just the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you who are uncertain about the effectiveness of Barack Obama’s presidency, I hate to tell you that supporting his reelection is your only option. Moderate is not even a word can be used appropriately about LGBTQ issues in politics these days. “Not extremely conservative” is about as good as it gets.

The campaign is not that far away. The Ames Straw poll will take place on August 13, 2011. The poll will help build momentum for the winning candidate and begin the organization of supporters nationwide.  It’s coming up.

We need to come together the same way that we did in 2008. We need to show Barack Obama support. We need to keep him in office. If we have any interest in legalizing equal marriage for all (or even keeping it in the states that have it now),  passing an all-inclusive ENDA bill (yes, you can still be fired in the United States for being LGBT or gender non-conforming) or to improve hate crime legislation nationwide, we need to start gearing up for Obama’s 2012 campaign.

We need to get back on the campaign trail and show our support for Obama.

We can’t afford for him to lose.

A meditation on finding confidence in new environments:

When you visit New York City, you try your hardest to not look like a tourist. In the morning of your first day in this new (york) city, you pick your clothing piece by piece from your knock off Louis Vuitton suitcase, and whisper inside your head that no one can tell that it isn’t real. You search for an outfit that says “I live in Chelsea.” You return some items to the brown and brown bag, deciding that the sweater or shoes are too Midwestern.

Too comfortable for a Manhattanite.

Once you are on the street, starting your big day, you aren’t sure that you are walking toward Times Square. You can’t remember if it was left or right. You refuse to pull out your map. You hope that the direction you are walking, even if it is wrong, is not dangerous. You have seen your fair share of CSI episodes. As your heart begins to beat faster, you wish that you had looked up which neighborhoods in New York aren’t safe to walk alone. Scolding yourself, you think how typical this behavior is for you. To be so concerned about an outfit that you didn’t care to find out where you are most likely to be killed.

You begin to make a plan to turn around, to walk back the 6 or 8 or 10 blocks to the shineless doors of your budget hotel. You want to return to your room and double check your directions, to maybe ask someone at the hotel to help. You want to call your best friend and admit your stupidity. To admit you’ve been walking at least 15 minutes in what you think is the wrong direction. To be wrist slapped through the phone for almost getting yourself killed by wondering into a gang-infested neighborhood. For being too proud, or cool, or stubborn to pull out your map. You recognize that even being told that ignoring your helpful, colorful, fold-out map is stupid, you would rather be lost than look like a tourist. You might rather be mugged, too.

As you cross the street, the first step in your perfectly calculated plan to check your watch, glare at your phone, dig through your bag, look frustrated, and turn around in a huff (hopefully signifying the fault of someone else in your need to backtrack), you look up and into the visual cacophony of the Times Square billboards. You smile to yourself, silently congratulate yourself, and continue walking on in the direction that you knew was right all along.

There used to be a time when finishing high school, obtaining a job that paid your mortgage, and starting a family was enough to permit a person to be happy. During this same time, the person you married might not be perfect, your career might not utilize all of your creative talents, and your home might be on the small side – but it was enough. You didn’t worry about the other stuff too much.

Equality was so far from real life that small steps in the right direction could be celebrated. Maybe people didn’t expect that we’d ever have gay politicians or a black president. They didn’t think equal marriage rights would ever be realized – but integrating high schools or making abortion legal were so important that people felt proud of their country’s progress.

This generation of which I am a member has been given something (I’m guessing from our baby boomer parents) that severely alters our ability to be happy. Barack Obama further pressed us to embody this. So many large and small protests waged internally and internationally rest on this very impalpable idea:

HOPE.

Hope is a valuable tool. It is with hope that we look forward to the growth and change of our world and of ourselves within it. It is with hope that we push one inch closer to equality and to freedom and to democracy (in the least imperialistic meaning of the word). Hope encourages us to work harder, to take more classes or to learn new skills.

But it is also with hope that we struggle to be satisfied. We set high goals and believe the words when we are told that we can be someone. We want rewarding jobs, we want perfect relationships, and we want total equality. None of those things are bad – they are wonderful goals to aspire to, and many of us will achieve at least a portion of the things we hope for, but that hope also leads us to be a disappointed group of people with too many degrees, too much debt and a lack of satisfaction about our lives (no matter how “good” they are). We are mad that we don’t hold success in our hands at age 30, or that our country hasn’t legalized equal marriage yet.

Older LGBT folks (the Old Gay, if you will) will often express their excitement about the recent changes in equal rights – because they recall just hoping these things might happen in their lifetimes. They also may warn us to relax a little – remind us that change doesn’t happen overnight, but things have moved so fast in our lifetimes, that we expect it to. We EXPECT change to happen right now. So many individuals who voted Barack Obama into office in 2008 were already two-facing his presidency by February because he didn’t legalize gay marriage and repeal DOMA and DADT in the first 30 days. Somehow we have forgotten that we have been spoiled by swiftly moving waters, and that not all things happen now because we want them now.

We must learn to balance hope and satisfaction. To find joy in the journey.

Is your happiness with your level of personal and professional success directly related to how you HOPED your life would end up?  How do we find satisfaction in the slow pace and road blocks of our individual journeys when we have been taught to hope so high?

Activist and musician Bono (WikiCommons)

Activism used to be a full time job. Today, young people rely more on accidental activists –not politicians or pastors but writers, musicians and actors who use their celebrity to bring attention to a cause. Everyday Facebook or Gmail let me know that XYZ celebrity supports gay marriage and demands that I click “like” to join the pack.

It used to be that activism and protest were counterculture – that to be normal and accept the way things were, to respect the decisions made for you by God or the government was patriotic and polite. Often it was average Americans who brought inequality to the forefront of our minds by becoming embroiled as heroes or heathens in headline making legal cases. Vashti McCollum who fought against religion in schools in the 1940s and Norma L. McCorvey who, under the alias of Jane Roe, fought for women’s right to choose in the landmark case, Roe v. Wade.

There is a fair amount of organizational activism and grassroots activism, but it seems that young people flock to causes because they align with their favorite celebrity and that celebrities flock to causes to achieve the same effect. This is activism by herd mentality (the same way conformism by herd mentality has existed for so long) but it works. And it works in both conservative and liberal circles – the same way Ellen Degeneres has swayed people to support gay marriage, the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus popularized abstinence, and Justin Bieber has been hauling his fans aboard the God bandwagon since he got out of diapers 3 years ago.

This type of activism might not be as altruistic or genuine as the MLK Jr.-type stuff, but it is activism nonetheless.

There is no doubt that activism is often driven by a celebrity leader, but what happens when that celebrity leader whose primary job is not, for instance, to ensure the nation’s young people have good manners, but to provide the voice of Bart on the Simpsons, retires from their activism or moves on to a new pet project after a year or two or ten? When the voice of a celebrity activist is silenced, what happens to the volume of their followers?

I’d like to be optimistic in thinking that the Jennifer Hudsons, Julia Roberts, Bonos and Dan Savages of the world and their involvement in social and political causes does not do more harm than good. Certainly, it can be dangerous for celebrities to grace magazine covers and TV commercials garnering support for a cause that may fall off their priority list when their new movie or album comes out, but hopefully the initial support of a cause and the popularity fame brings to that cause can be considered a jumping off point for other activists.

The gay marriage issue straddles both sides of this line: street demonstrations and protests, court cases brought to local jurisdictions, bloggers and online activism, and celebrity endorsements. It’s an unfinished argument about which side is more powerful, but I have a feeling that without celebrity approval, the fight for marriage equality would continue raging.

Do you think the retirement of a celebrity activist silences the voices of their followers, or provides room in the ranks for new leaders to rise? Is celebrity a goal of all activists? Is celebrity activism less affective than grassroots?

I also recommend this interesting article from Naomi Klein on the “Bono-ization” of Activism here.

Julia Ward Howe

It’s Mother’s Day again?

Didn’t I just send flowers for that holiday?

Do I have to send cards to all my friends who have suddenly and uncoolly morphed into mothers?

Isn’t this just one more Hallmark holiday?

Mother’s Day, as pink and fluffy as it may be, in fact is not a Hallmark holiday – at least not originally. In the wake of the violence our country has been experiencing (and maybe celebrating, I cringe to say) this is a good time to reflect on the pacifist origins of Mom’s day.

The celebration of women and mothers can be traced back into antiquity; however the more modern movement was sparked in the end of the 19^th century with a call to women by Julia Ward Howe, a US feminist, poet and social reformer, who wrote the “Mother’s Day Proclamation”  in the wake of the carnage of the Civil War.

Here is the full text:

“Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:

“We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: “Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.”

Howe believed that it was the responsibility of women to shape society,  because women were able to act without violence and war (unlike what she had witnessed in the fighting of men during the Civil War). Still, no Mother’s Day was officially established until Anna Jarvis of West Virginia convinced Woodrow Wilson to make the holiday official in 1914.

Today, Mother’s Day might be pretty commercial, but its no less a reason to recognize and support women who raise pacifistic and open-minded children, women who support their LGBTQ children, women who march and fight for the rights of their parents, siblings, children and friends to live in a world without fear of violence.

In our community, we must remind ourselves that an intellectual fight with weapons of logic and words is still our best method of winning battles.

Via ACRJ Blog

Then I scrolled to the comment section of the post to find that I was not the only reader who was offended by the content of the article. As of today there are 443 comments on the post, the vast majority telling Ms. Fagan to check herself. The basic argument in the comments is that the website /web editor of the Thought Catalogue has a responsibility for restricting content that strays beyond the boundary of free and opinionated speech and into the realm of ignorance, hate, or any other area though would be more likely to offend or hurt that to provoke thought. Readers (mostly) agreed that the article should have never been posted.

Feministing.com posted a powerful and intelligent response to Fagan’s article. And, Thought Catalogue eventually posted an apology for publishing the offending article in the first place – but some readers found this action condemnable as well. Is writing an apology to notify readers that the site doesn’t support the opinion of the writer in question responsible? Or should the readers be responsible for making their own judgments via the comments section? Should Thought Catalogue have caught this piece before it was posted?

How much control do we want our media outlets to have? Every time Glen Beck opens his mouth he offends enormous portions of the American population (myself included), but no one apologizes for him. However, due to the ignorance and hate he manages to stir up, maybe I do wish that someone would restrict his expression. Oh, wait. They did.

Then this debate landed in my own backyard. This week on TNG a contributor posted a piece that was met with some controversy. Not that this is entirely unusual - I’ve been writing this weekly column on TNG for two years, and, I’ll tell you, we like controversy! As I read this post on “outing” gay individuals, however, I found myself wondering whether or not posts that encouraged dangerous behavior, such as outing individuals, or disregarded challenging processes, like coming out, or displayed ignorance for the deeper issues involved in the continuity of gender and sexual orientation, should even be allowed on TNG. We love opinion. We love controversy. But don’t we also respect our readers and our writers enough to challenge language that challenges our rights and our safety?

To be honest, I’m not sure which side of the argument I come down on yet. Should sites like TNG and Thought Catalogue be more responsible about their content, or should readers be able to make their own judgments and writers their own mistakes? What do you think?

Somewhere deep in the recesses of When Harry Met Sally early 90s meditations on gender, a gravestone of the most clichéd contemplation lies:

Can Men and Woman Really Be Just Friends?

Hopefully we have all moved past such a woefully simple perspective on gender and relationships to a place where friendships can exist without sex and sex can exist without friendships. Where men and women, gay or straight, are all a part of one community with individual differences not characterized as whole groups. There does, however, still seem to be one question looming out there: When is the right time to “out” yourself?

A couple weeks ago a friend of mine encountered two similarly frustrating situations. Weeks of friendly flirtation with a male acquaintance finally culminated in the passing mention of his fiancé. A fiancé who had not entered conversation even once in the previous weeks, leaving my friend, let’s call her Audrey, a little confused about why the two had been flirting at all. Within weeks of the fiancé conversation, Audrey had dinner with a new female friend of hers. The dinner was fun — drinks and the tipsy divulging of secrets — but Audrey was nonetheless surprised to face a next-day email inquiring, “Where is this going?” – the admission of her new friend that she doesn’t want to fall for the “straight girl” again. Does dinner automatically mean dating?

Sometimes you meet someone at a gay singles night. You can estimate pretty confidently that the people you meet that night are, A.) into same sex relationships; B.) single and interested in meeting someone. But sometimes you meet people at a mutual friend’s birthday party, a writing workshop, a work conference. Then what?

If men and women (or gay men/men, gay women/women) can be friends, then our conversations shouldn’t have to begin with, “I’m in a relationship.” If people of all sexual and gender identities can exist socially (without having to have sex with each other) then the first statement in a new friendship doesn’t need to be a full run down of sexual identity and orientation. Right?  You might meed a cute girl at a party with short hair and a button down shirt on – you might start to flirt. How long can she wait before she tells you shes straight? If she says it right away, are you offended that she assumed you thought she was hot? If she waits, do you feel like she lead you on?

But if it’s not the first thing you tell someone, how long do you wait? When does it become lying by omission? Is an engaged man chatting with a woman without offering information about his relationship acting deceptively? Is a gay woman meeting and befriending another woman without “coming out” mean she’s being sneaky? Does not admitting your sexual identity or relationship status in a job interview somehow mean you are hiding the truth?

When do you acknowledge that the person you are spending time with may be interested in you romantically? When do you come out as unavailable, unavailable, straight or gay?

Baptist Church, State Route 148 c. WikiCommons

With the overwhelming possibility of government shutdown looming the past few weeks, I have been struggling to keep criticisms bi-partisan. I am a Democrat, born and bred, but I try not to be the first person to say that a problem is “the fault of the Republicans.” (Unless you catch me after a few beers in an election year.)

However, I am having a hard time keeping my mind open. I feel like what is happening right now on the Hill and in the offices of governmental officials all over this country is a Republican refusal to support certain social issues. Social issues that Democrats have been holding on to with all (or most) of their might. To be fair, I’ve finally come to terms with the fact that my real enemies in this nation are not “the Republicans” but “the God-fearing Republicans.” This realization came into focus as I separated my categories of thought into smaller segments.

I don’t hate religious folks. A lot of people who love God (or a God) are decent, caring people who aim to contribute to this world in a very selfless way. Although I disagree with their beliefs, many religious folks are tolerant of my opinion, and are even interested in hearing how my opinion was formed. St. Jude, Habitat for Humanity and plenty of other organizations and individuals are propelled by their belief in God to live a good life. Their beliefs are their own, and the often don’t bother me at all.

I don’t hate Republicans. A lot of these folks are interested in fiscal responsibility. They like small government, they believe in their freedom to own a gun even if they, as individuals, would never own one (which is a nice parallel to the feelings of many women about abortion). A lot of Republicans are good people. People who maybe dislike the rate of change demanded by Democrats, but who want the best for this country and for those who live in it. I may disagree with their beliefs, but I don’t actually see them as THE problem in this country.

Its Republicans who love God that seem to be on a daily crusade to take away rights from others and to defund organizations that protect vulnerable populations. Republicans who love God hate the gays and refuse to allow women rights to their own bodies. It is Republicans who love God who manage to convert every issue in politics and government and society into an argument of sin and sinner. It is Republicans who love God who vote down a ban on employment and housing discrimination for transgender people. Voting against a ban on discrimination is voting FOR discrimination.

Without trying to be an insensitive and ignorant blogger, how does an individual sleep at night who has traded the health, safety, knowledge and freedom of a fellow American because a being whom you have never met told you it was the right decision?

It seems a belief and God and a conservative perspective can exist independently, but together these two traits that challenge the freedoms of all Americans. Some of us still stand by that old Separation of Church and State thing.

On a related note, does anyone know an atheist who hates gay people? I’d like an interview.

c. FCKH8.com

Whenever I’m really riled up in an argument I try to remind myself to control my voice and to avoid dropping F-Bombs. Yelling and swearing, I tell myself, are ways in which people who cannot smartly make points or communicate emotions make up for that lacking.

It’s not really that I have a problem with the words themselves; I swear in conversation or in my writing to emphasize a point or make a joke. However, in some situations, using “foul language” in anger can be aggressive, immature, demonstrate lack of control and often hamper communication. I can’t count the number of times I have been a part of an argument that has come to a screeching halt because one of the participants refuses to listen to a curse-laden diatribe. Most of us don’t react well to violence or aggressive language, especially those of us who have experienced it in the past.

Cursing is also often favored because its shocking and aggressive. It gets people attention. Ask any kid who has accidentally muttered “F*ck you” to a parent or older sibling because even young people are aware of how damaging those words can be. Language is power – and there is no doubt that foul language holds power – but what is the right way to wield that power?

What about GLBT Groups trying to harness that power to speak out about hate against gay people and bullying in schools? A friend of mine, who is a school teacher, sent me the link to a video which she had received from a student.  It was an anti Bullying video from the FCKH8 Campaign. I wasn’t able to view to video on my phone due to some content restrictions, but when I eventually had a chance to watch it I found myself pretty turned off.  I did a little research and found that at the end of March The Advocate reported that the FCKH8 campaign donated 300,000 dollars to GLBT Charities such as the Trevor Project. That’s awesome, but, as Davina Kotulski pointed out in January on Bilerico, “Is having children yell ‘fuck you’ to people who are against gay marriage on recorded video exploitative of children?” After thinking about it, that wasn’t the only question the campaign raised for me.

I am supportive of many movements that aim to “reclaim” opinions or terminology ABOUT minorities FOR minorities, but using angry and aggressive words to fight anger and aggression doesn’t work for me. The FCKH8 campaign has gained quite a bit of popularity, perhaps with young activists who believe that tooth and nail is the best way to reach equality, but there is also something to say for the desire of a minority group to reflect the morals and values that they desire others to exude toward them. In situations like this one, I tend to think  that fighting fire with water is much more effective than fighting fire with fire.

Conversations and peaceful sit-ins don’t always move fast enough or even accomplished the desired goals at all, but creating an ad campaign promoting equality that can’t responsibly be taken into schools, churches, offices or family parties doesn’t do us a whole lot of good. If we can’t be proud of our message in front of our teachers, our pastors and our grandparents, how can we be proud at all? Our message needs to be sharable, mature and inclusive. To communicate an important point we should be using important language. I wouldn’t use the F-bomb in a business meeting, or making a hotel reservation, or explaining why I’m pro-choice or anti-death penalty. Why would I use it to help people understand gay rights? If President Obama appeared in the State of the Union address and said, “F*ck Terrorism,” would you be inspired or offended?

What do you think of these videos and this message?

You can view the FCKH8 FCK Bullies video here. Due to adult language you have to sign into YouTube and be at least 18 years old in order to view it, so it could not be embedded here.  A powerful message for/by youth, restricted from youth? Something about that seems ineffective.

By the time you are 15, you’ve developed the beginning of what will become Break-up Coping Strategies. Maybe you haven’t even started dating yet. You got cut from the basketball team, failed a test or were ignored by someone you were crushing on and you automatically flip into Break-up Coping mode.

You smuggle a box of Cheez-its into your bedroom and watch endless hours of Fresh Prince of Bel Air reruns as your mouth burns with sodium overload.

You write line after line of bad poetry careful to codify your true feelings in case someone gets their hands on your secret book.

You stay late after school running laps, determined to force the sad out of your body and emerge more successful.

You join a different sport, study harder for the next test, or try again to impress your crush.

These strategies are innate – as long as human beings have been walking upright, we have been coping with sadness and loss. The strategy, of course, depends on the type of person and the type of loss.

In my 28+ years I have struggled with finding a balanced strategy to heal an aching heart and mind. When I am having a rough time at work, do I double down and work harder, or do I totally shut down and spend 8 hours starting at my computer screen wishing for the situation to improve itself?

When someone hurts me, do I run 5 miles a day, clean my apartment and join a new writing group, or do I drink beer after beer until I can’t remember how much it hurts (although the first 5 beers exists to help me remember exactly how it hurts) and listen to Rilo Kiley 24 hours a day?

I don’t know. I haven’t really figured it out yet, regardless of how many losses I’ve suffered. I think I’m naturally drawn to self-destruction – drinking until I can’t walk and stuffing pizza in my face – even though I realized that I’m the only one getting hurt with that behavior. But, I guess that’s the point – to make the blow harder, the hurt worse. I sort of think that is natural, too. I didn’t really like the 20 lbs I gained during my self-destructive Break-up Coping Strategy rampage last year (which including quitting my job and a trip to Mexico), but, oh man, did it feel good gaining those L-Bs.

What are your Break-up Coping Strategies? When you lose your job or lose a relationship, what recovery road do you take?

What happened to grand romantic gestures?

Aside from that astronaut who drove to Florida (wearing diapers so she wouldn’t have to stop to pee) to kidnap her boyfriend, and that guy who tried to kill President Nixon to impress Jodie Foster  - does anyone really do anything for Love anymore? Is a Grand Romantic Gesture the stuff of yore because those people who we envy for their dedication to love suffered from mental illness? Is being in love – truly in love – actually a little bit of a mental illness?

Take this quiz to find out how dedicated you are to Love.

Have you ever:

1. Made a romantic someone a Mix-Tape/Mix-CD?
2. Driven more than two hours to comfort him/her in time of need?
3. Moved across country to be together (or to another country)?
4. Cut off your own ear?
5. Supported him/her financially?
6. Publicly bragged about how lucky you are to have found him/her?
7. Painted picture/written poem for him/her?
8. Given up something that you really want or like, because he/she can’t stand it?
9. Brought him/her breakfast in bed?
10. Built towering monument symbolizing your love to last for all eternity?
11. Sent flowers on birthday or V-day? (+1pt for sending for no reason at all)
12. Surprised him/her with party including family/friends?
13. Had his or her name/ symbol representing your true love tattooed on body?
14. Met celebrity on your list of “Celebrities who I am totally permitted to sleep with I’ve I ever met them” and still chosen to be faithful?
15. Taken care of him/her when he/she was sick (like really gross sick, too)?

Answer Key:

Find the number of points awarded to each question within the parenthesis. Good luck!

1 (2) / 2 (2) / 3 (3) / 4 (5) / 5 (4) / 6 (2) / 7 (2) / 8 (2) / 9 (1) / 10 (5) / 11 (1 or 2) / 12 (2) / 13 (4) / 14 (3) / 15 (2)

30-40 pts
Wow. Will Shakespeare and Nicholas Sparks would be proud; however this type of love might be considered mental illness. Please call a help line.

20-30 pts
You are definitely a keeper, and you think a lot about how to make your S.O. happy. Now, nonchalantly ask him or her to take this quiz, fully implying that you haven’t taken it yet. Find out his/her score and decide if he/she is as good to you as you are to him/her.

10-20pts
You are doing a pretty decent job keeping the relationship going, but you could probably step it up with a tattoo or a surprise party. I hope you don’t list “Romance” on your list of interests on Facebook. Actually, no one should list “Romance” on their list of interests on Facebook, that’s just creepy.

0-10pts
What’s your S.O.’s phone number? I’d like to give him/her a call and set him/her up with a friend of mine. You aren’t really cutting it.

Photo Credit: Wiki Commons

Yes, we managed to elect a black president, but the circumstances surrounding this win were precise and, really, celestial. We had come off almost 10 years of war and fear and general dislike for our leadership. We are a country made up of more than 12 percent African Americans. Barack Obama is a bright and competent leader. He is likable. He had good ideas for our future. He had a great track record. He campaigned on a platform of change. He also happened to be black.

We might also have a chance of electing a Hispanic president, with about 15 percent of the country currently made up of Hispanic or Latino Americans. Although not a large representation, there are Hispanic Americans in the U.S. government. There is a good chance that the liberal vote in this country is strong enough to elect a Hispanic president regardless of the disgusting anti-immigration factions that exist. This will hopefully happen in the near future.

Women? Of course, we are half (or more) of the U.S. population and serve in public office, but we are believed by many to be incapable of serving in a role as important as the presidency. We all watched Hilary Clinton, who is a brilliant woman with many of the same ideas and beliefs as President Barack Obama, get destroyed in the media simply for being a woman. She was called a “Bitch” – an insult which specifically relates to her womanhood. She was criticized for crying, for being emotional, for not being emotional enough, etc. If she had been a man, I feel pretty confident that she would have beaten Obama for the democratic nomination for a simple reason: Awesome White Male Candidate beats Awesome Black Male Candidate in America. And no, racial minorities certainly don’t have it easy but from the 2008 election it seems clear. Awesome Black Candidate beats Awesome Woman Candidate. (Obama won the general election not only because he is Awesome, but also because he is young. Young usually beats old in America, too).

We might not even see a gay candidate for many, many years. Even out Hollywood actors often say that although coming out is “the right thing” to do, it certainly doesn’t do much for your career. It can’t be better for an American politician. You generally have to have a pretty solid career to run for president, and it’s a little harder to have a rocking career as a gay politician. The adversity is real.

In the end, the problem is that homosexuals are seen by religious or far-right people as being morally lacking. As more gay people form documented families, we might see some of these perceptions changing, but Americans seem to have a hard time trusting someone who isn’t married or who doesn’t have children. These “values” are held so close to American’s hearts that a single or childless candidate is already almost immediately out of the running for President. Even candidates running for lower offices are subjected to this discrimination from some conservative groups. Just this week, in Tampa, Florida, an election ad attacked a candidate for being “Unmarried” – as if being married were a specific qualification required for being a Mayor.  If a candidate happened to be not only unmarried, but also gay, the likeliness that the conservative/religious right would be up in arms raising record amounts of money to guarantee a Republican win would be 100%. I mean – there is no chance that an unmarried gay can care about budget reform, right?

Yes, this is a pessimistic point of view. Yes, we thought it would take longer to vote in a black president, but the right man for the job arrived and many of us were ecstatically surprised. Yes, gay folks are making a lot of progress socially and politically in this country, but for some reason this is one of those things I have a hard time being hopeful about.

What’s worse? It makes absolutely no difference if a candidate is gay or not. I don’t necessarily need to see a gay candidate in the highest office in the land in order to feel supported or to feel that my voice is heard. The hard part is feeling like I live in a country where a majority of the voters think that the gender, race or sexual orientation of an individual really determines if they can be a successful leader. Sigh.

Liking He-Man did not mean I was gay — liking girls did.

I am not denying that stereotypes are often based in fact, or that our perceived relationship with gender and its presentation often  relates to our sexual identity or orientation. Instead I am emphasizing that the two things aren’t lock and key.

Projecting homosexuality onto an individual based on their style of dress or cultural preferences isn’t totally fair. It’s the exact argument that many liberal people make against parents pushing heteronormative behavior on children. Saying, “Bobby loves Barbies and makeup. He’s probably gay,” is no different from saying, “Bobby is a boy. He should be playing with trucks, not Barbies.”

I support any efforts to promote equality for minority individuals, and I am happy when these efforts find success. CNN ran a story this week  about a website launched in January called “Born This Way,” which is a photo-essay style blog containing photos of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer people as children. Site founder, Paul V., explains that the site is meant to show “that being gay is innate and it’s not a choice and these things come out in us as children.”

Paul V. also says he hopes that gay kids feel a sense of connection and a sense of worth from this project. This photo essay blog is another project which has found wings on the current winds of the It Gets Better Project. The more projects, websites, and foundations that support the health and safety of LGBTQ people, the better. I encourage everyone to check out this blog, but I also encourage you to keep in mind that while we want people to recognize that queerness is not learned, we don’t want to continue the spread the message that you can “see” gay.

Making gayness a visible, physical trait can encourage violence against those who are perceived gay, like 15-year–old Lawrence King, who was killed by a 14-year-old classmate in California for wearing makeup. It can also alienate LGBTQ people who don’t fit the stereotype of looking “gay enough.” If gayness was really a physical trait, how would we explain femme lesbians; masculine, sports loving gay men; butch straight women; effeminate, GaGa loving straight men? How do we support a transgender man who sleeps with men?

Just as we try to remind the  heterosexual community that who we sleep with doesn’t change who we are, so we should remind them that whether their son is into the Golden Girls or loves football they should foster and nurture the adult he will become without deciding on his sexual orientation based on a stereotype.

Thanks to Paul V., for this great project which shows that being different as a child is OK. Also thanks to all of those who visit the site for realizing that being queer is a larger issue than just being a little boy who wants to wear a wig to church.

Last week the conservative and homophobic leaders in Texas were at it again — as if we haven’t experienced enough of discriminatory Texas craziness. A high school student in Corpus Christi tried to organize a Gay-Straight Alliance by gathering 500 signatures and the school board responded by not only rejecting her proposal, but by shutting down all extra-curricular activities at the school.

Really? That is some serious homophobia. The scam here is that by banning all clubs that are not academic (or “curricular”) from campus, they are following a previously ignored rule on the books. This way, that GSA isn’t being blocked because it’s a GSA, it’s blocked because it’s not “curricular.” This is the sort of language and double talk that ends up in state and federal governments as well.   The area’s Superintendent Julie Carbajal has said that there is no chance the district will approve the purposed Gay-Straight Alliance.

The importance of Gay-Straight Alliances is immeasurable and the many heroes in our community include those who work with these programs educating and supporting young people.  I am proud that I have friends who as high school teachers started GSAs; as university professors created policies protecting transgender students in athletics programs; who as residence hall directors acted on Safe Space Planning committees and instructed AIDS Peer Education. These groups are the key to helping young gay or questioning students find information and support. They are also crucial for parents, teachers and community members to learn about LGBTQ issues and what they can do to support and foster the health and success of young people. Texas school leaders are making fools of themselves in front of a nation which is increasingly accepting of individual rights.

Sometimes being an advocate for equality is just so disappointing. Reading news like this is one of those times. I hope school boards and educators across the country take this opportunity to express their support for student organizing – even if just to distance themselves from the hatred and discrimination which flies like a flag over the Lone Star State.

Photo Credit: WikiMedia Commons

While I was in downward dog last night, Chicago elected a new mayor. In many cities, the mayoral turnover rate, like that of most elected officials, is rather high – but in Chicago, we like our dynasties. Mainly the early 90’s Champion Chicago Bulls, and the Daleys. A good chunk of the “corrupt politics” label is often attributed to this long-time powerful Chicago family, but as Richard M. Daley ended his more than 20 year reign, former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel landslid his way into Chicago’s top spot.

How do we know Rahm will be good for Chicago’s LGBT Community?

1. He studied ballet (and was even awarded a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet) – Fact: Studying ballet means one of two things: you are a little bit gay or you really like hanging around gay people.
2. He graduated from Sarah Lawrence College.  – Fact: Same Sex Experimentation is a graduation requirement at Sarah Lawrence
3. He is missing part of his middle finger on his right hand.  – Fact: He has experienced discrimination first hand (no pun intended).  – Fact: the injury occurred while slicing meat at an Arby’s when he was young, thus he understands the plights of the underemployed.
4. His nickname is “Rahmbo.”  - Fact: “Rahmbo” is both a clever play on his name, which appeals to the intellectualism of the gay community, but also an allusion to Sylvester Stallone’s muscled, sweaty, gun toting-character in the film “Rambo” which has a very pornographic feel, also appealing to the gay community.
5. He runs triathlons.  – Fact: Everyone likes a man who cares about his body and who can change from a wetsuit to bike shorts in 30 seconds flat.
6. The name “Rahm” means “High or Lofty” in Hebrew.  - Fact:  Gay people love hubris and a sense of superiority.
7. His brother Ari is a Hollywood talent agent.  – Fact: 96% of the people in Hollywood are gay. Rahm’s actions could seriously affect his brother’s livelihood.
8. He scores a 100% with the HRC.  – Fact: Rahm was endorsed by the HRC and the statewide Equality Illinois PAC.
9. He strongly supports gay marriage rights in Chicago.  – Fact: Rahm has a perfect record on LGBT issues during his three terms in Congress. Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. Co-sponsored re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment.
10. Is against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).  – Fact: Rahm said, “I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married. That’s why I thought the civil unions [ are ] the right thing to do, but it’s only the first step toward an ultimate goal.”

In the end, he’s a local guy with a colorful background. I’m not sure he’ll be able to dig Chicago out from under its deficit, or rescue the failing public school system, but, if we are lucky, he might be found atop a float at the 2011 Gay Pride Parade!