Make repression backfire

I finished the book Gay Bar by Jeremy Atherton Lin. Me intrigued by gay bars? I’ve been in a gay bar definitely once, I doubt more than that. That once was the /aut/ bar in Ann Arbor I think when the gay owners announced they were retiring. I thought I should go there before it closes. So I went when it was still daylight, ate my supper, and left. Before or after that I visited the LGBTQ bookstore next door owned by the same couple, also about to close. Before then I think the only time I went into any type of bar for drinking (as opposed for a meal at a “bar and grill”) was when I was in college and I went with my girlfriend (before I realized I’m gay) and her parents. They had booze. I didn’t. During my life I think I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve consumed alcohol and have fingers left over. I don’t like the taste and see no need to be under the influence. So why would I buy a book about gay bars? I’m not sure I have an answer for that. I did hear or read a review of the book that said it was quite good. So when I was in an LGBTQ bookstore (this one in Royal Oak) and saw it, I bought it. Then I let it sit on the shelf for a few years. The subtitle “Why We Went Out” isn’t quite right. Atherton Lin does cover that – briefly – and hits the usual reasons: A safe place to be ourselves. A place to be a part of our community. A place to cruise. A place to develop resistance and activism. The book really is about the gay bars he and his partner frequented (or merely visited) in California (where he’s from) and England (where his partner is from). I understand he needed to give his partner an alias to protect privacy, but that alias is Famous Blue Raincoat, usually shortened to Famous. Only in the acknowledgments did he say the name came from a Leonard Cohen song, whose lyrics are weird enough I’m not sure what they’re saying. For each of the bars they visit the author describes the place, the clientele, some of the interesting things that happened to him there, and some of the history of the place. He also tries to describe what it all means, and I don’t think that was so successful. As for some of the history, one of the bars was on Villiers St. in London. George Villiers was a favorite of King James I – yeah, the sponsor of the translation of the Bible many conservatives insist is the only correct one was gay. So the king bestowed this chunk of real estate along the Strand. Having gay pubs in the area around Villiers St. is quite appropriate. He discusses a skinhead attack and followed that up with gay men adopting the skinhead look. Did they do it because they wanted to beat up people who attacked their kind? Perhaps. Or maybe when one looks that tough people don’t mess with them. In the last decade he noticed a lot of pubs on London’s South Bank showing the pride flag. Were they welcoming LGBTQ people? Or was that a way to keep another type of customer out? I didn’t read the second half of the first chapter because what I read seemed to be one excuse for sex after another. If the second chapter wasn’t any better I was going to drop the book. Thankfully, it was better and I can say overall I enjoyed the book. Atherton Lin has a second book out. This one is about the difficulties of gay relationships, like his, where the partners are from different countries. He is a good enough writer that I should put it on my to-buy list. Astead Henderson of the show Today, Explained from Vox and heard on NPR talked to Chanté Joseph about an article she wrote for Vogue titled “Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?” I worked from the transcript. There is a growing trend to hide the face of the boyfriend, sometimes even the groom, on social media. Why? Some of it is privacy. Some of it is because when they guy cheats on her she doesn’t want to edit her social media account. Some of it is because the woman has created a brand around herself and announcing a boyfriend would interrupt that brand. And some of it... Scoring a boyfriend used to give a sense of achievement. But with conservatives touting tradwives, a straight romantic relationship seems archaic, co-opted by the right. Joseph had to clarify to readers she wasn’t attacking women or their relationships. She was not shaming them for finding love. Love is wonderful.

But I'm saying that there is a way that men have been allowed to behave and act in society for so long that has only gotten worse.

Then she discussed men’s reaction to her article.

And but then obviously there was a lot of hateful abuse, a lot of racist abuse. Men talking about the way that they'd want to see me abused and die. And it was really awful. And I think I definitely struck a nerve, particularly with men.

Women are now more educated than men. They have their jobs and are running households. They are seeing they don’t need men. So men are feeling the dating space is the last place they can have true domination. They used to have power over a great many spaces and they are losing that. Joseph mentioned the book The Tragedy of Heterosexuality by Professor Jane Ward. A chapter is about the things queer people say about their straight friends when those friends aren’t around. The conclusion seems to be “straight culture is very embarrassing.” Joseph said that when boys message her saying how worried they are she tells them to be aware of what media is teaching them about what to believe about women. Social media tries to reach boys when they are young. As for young women they are delighted to learn that having a boyfriend does not have to be the most important thing. They can be a good and fascinating person by themselves. In the second half of the program Henderson spoke to Jane Ward, professor of feminist and queer studies at UC Santa Barbara. They discussed the book mentioned above. What got her writing the book is hearing from lesbians wondering if straight people were okay, hearing straight women wish they were lesbian. Ward laid out the contradiction at the heart of modern straight identity that started in the early 20th century. The idea of companionate marriage develops, in contrast to how marriage was seen for centuries. Men are supposed to care about women and their wellbeing. There is supposed to be mutual respect. Men are supposed to actually like and love their woman. But these men “are still raised in a misogynistic culture, one that normalizes boys and men's hatred of girls and women.” We’ve developed a new type of marriage without undoing the “centuries of patriarchy and misogyny that are pretty foundational to the human experience.” Mainstream culture hasn’t been able to cross that gap. There is hope. Recognizing that contradiction and discussing it is a start. So is recognizing the current norm isn’t working. But we haven’t figured out the replacement yet, so there is a lot of uncertainty and anxiety. This seems to contribute to women becoming more liberal while men are becoming more conservative. Ward says the solution is feminism, that men embrace feminism. Men can

demonstrate that they actually like women so much, they're sooooo heterosexual that they actually like women. They want to listen to women talk. They care about women's ideas. They want to follow women's leadership. ... They're friends with women. They watch movies about women. They read books written by women. I mean, it's just kind of amazing how narrowly we have defined heterosexual masculinity.

The news today has been full of the story of a white woman in Minneapolis, Renee Good, who didn’t act in the way ICE agents wanted, so they shot through the windshield of her car, killing her. The mayor of Minneapolis used foul language to tell ICE to leave. Kristi Noem of Homeland Security almost immediately began to vilify Good. Minnesota police discovered the FBI wouldn’t share findings, preventing the state team from being able to conduct an independent investigation, so we know whatever the FBI gives us for their report will be filled with lies. Gaslit Nation released an episode featuring Annie, a listener from Minneapolis. There’s 15 minutes of audio, though I’ll stick to the lengthy description, which includes references. Annie is pleased Minnesota politicians are taking the ICE occupation more seriously. That’s good, but their response should be so much more. It should be real resistance.

Actual resistance could look like tracking ICE apprehensions and accounting for all victims, running a support hotline for impacted families, providing legal aid to immigrants, tracking ICE locations and sharing this information with immigrants at risk, maintaining a list of ICE license plates, serving as constitutional observers during ICE stops, or even just lifting up the work of rapid response networks and encouraging residents to participate. None of this has been happening, and that probably won’t change, but I now have a tiny bit of hope that it might. ... Today, [Mayor] Jacob Frey told ICE to “get the f*ck out of Minneapolis,” but he didn’t say what he will do if they don’t. We need to be thinking about resistance dynamics. When ICE does not get out of Minneapolis, what action will the City take? What actions are we taking to back up our demands?

Annie linked to a recent video by Tad Stoermer, a historian of resistance movements, talking about the “loyal opposition.” That’s when the opposition party treats dictators as a normal political opponent, they are loyal to the system the dictator is operating in. But that teaches people the wrong lesson about resistance. It says this is the only response, this is how serious people handle it. A loyal opposition that talks about affordability while the dictator is invading other nations and threatening the stability of NATO and the world is saying it’s not that bad. Real resistance develops organizing infrastructure and networks, build parallel institutions. See: Underground Railroad. The loyal opposition sucks up energy that could be used to build resistance infrastructure. I see Congressional Democrats are complaining about both affordability and the Venezuela invasion. But there is a difference between complaining and real resistance.

The phrase that keeps repeating in my head today is “Make repression backfire.” Collectively, let’s channel our grief and rage into making state repression backfire and building a real resistance movement that will allow us to protect people, take back power, and build the world we need.

A moralist for our time

I just finished Dan Savage's latest book American Savage. If you really don't know who he is, you need to get out more. If you insist, the basics are at his Wikipedia page. In this book he lays out his opinions on a variety of topics. I find his views to be well reasoned and to make a lot of sense. I'm glad to see he is being called a moralist for our time. Since Savage is a columnist for sex advice several of the topics in the book are about sex.

I'm going to save chapters 1 and 13 for the end. My summary of the other chapters:

2. It's never okay to cheat (except when it is): Humans are bad at monogamy (why else do we put that in marriage vows?). There are certain situations where it is better to have sex outside of a marriage than to dissolve the marriage. Outside those situations if a spouse strays once or twice over a long marriage that is a sign that the spouse is pretty good at monogamy. That's why Savage coined the term "monogamish."

3. Sex dread. Sex education is taught in schools two ways. There is the abstinence only curriculum, which is very good at raising teenage pregnancy rates. There is a "comprehensive" curriculum, which also teaches about safe sex and birth control and sometimes addresses the needs of sexual minorities. It is better, says Savage, but not nearly enough. Both ways demonize sex, which is not a healthy thing to do to sexual beings. What is missing is such things as how to give and receive pleasure, what one should expect from a partner and what their partner will expect in return, what it means to find a compatible mate, and how to identify an abusive relationship. Only rarely will a teacher delve into these topics.

4. The GGG spot. Savage describes this as good, giving, and game, as in strive to be good in bed, giving pleasure without immediate reciprocation, and game for anything – within reason. That last part refers being willing to explore a partners sexual kinks as long as no harm will result. Those that do satisfy kinks usually have a much better and longer lasting relationship.

5. The choicer challenge. Lots of conservatives claim being a homosexual is a choice. Savage tackles that with a challenge. If you believe that a gay guy can flip a switch and become straight, show it is possible by flipping the switch and becoming gay. Prove it by having sex with Savage. No takers so far.

6. My son comes out. When this book was written in 2013, Savage's son D.J. was 15. The adoption was told in the book The Kid. In this essay Savage talks about what that book did to promote adoption by same-sex couples. He refutes the conservative view that gay parenting is bad. He notes the rate of same-sex couples raising kids is highest in the most conservative Southern states – gays and lesbians felt forced into straight marriages, produced kids, then realized they couldn't continue the charade. As for the chapter's title, D.J. came out – as straight. His parents had suspected for a long time.

7. Crazy, mad, salacious. Savage explores stereotyped portrayals of gay men in movies and television and how some stereotypes crept up on him.

8. Folsom prism blues. The Folsom Street Fair is all about men dressed in (sometimes not much) leather. Savage looks at a few anti-gay leaders who try to "sneak" into such events trying to expose the depravity of gay people.

9. The straight pride parade. Some straights, and even some gays, are turned off by pride parades with scantily clad dancers. Savage is challenged with the comment, "You don't see straight people flaunting our sexuality like that." He replies: "You should." And many straight people do – at Halloween.

10. Four closet cases. Savage sometimes meet older gay men in bars (Savage is now 50) and wonders how much of their lives had to be spent closeted. Savage goes on to discuss four closeted gay men who didn't have to be closeted and who wreaked a lot of damage before being outed. Washington state legislator Jim Webb pushed a great deal of anti-gay legislation before a scandal brought him down. Evangelist Ted Haggard used to preach against homosexuality until a callboy became fed up with Haggard's hypocrisy. Senator Larry Craig did at the national level what West was doing at the state level. He got caught in a raid in an airport men's room. Psychologist George Rekers made a name for himself by publishing studies in conversion therapy in which he used strong (perhaps brutal) reinforcements so that young boys would avoid effeminate behavior. Rekers declared his star subject to be cured – though the subject later committed suicide. Rekers was spotted returning from Europe with a young man hired to "lift his luggage." These men didn't need to be closeted, but choosing the closet caused considerable damage.

11. Mistakes were made. Savage searches for the bisexual male. From his own youth he knew that most men who say they are bisexual are really gay and are trying to come out only halfway. A study or two seemed to back that up. Then came a study that weeded out the liars. That was able to show bisexual males indeed exist.

12. On being different. Savage, his husband Terry, a few gay couples, son D.J. and a couple of the boy's straight friends vacationed in Hawaii. This contradicts the claim that gay men are all pedophiles. All the men in the group were gay. And the fathers of those boys knew their sons would be safe. It was during that vacation that Savage read the book On Being Different by Merle Miller, which was expanded from the article "What it Means to Be a Homosexual" written in 1971. In those 40 years things have gotten better. In this chapter Savage also discusses the start of his It Gets Better Project.

14. Rick and Me. Savage recounts what led to Rick Santorum having a Google problem.

15. Still evil. Less evil. But still evil. Savage delves into why he believes Obamacare is much better than what we had, but is still an evil system. Insurance companies skim billions off the top in profits. We still have insurance companies dictating care. And people are still falling through the cracks. The solution that isn't evil is Medicare for all. Along the way he exposes a few hypocrites. Savage is amazed that many conservative Christians oppose universal health coverage.

16. It's happened again. Savage discusses the frequent mass shootings in America. We need to do something now. Savage ends by noting that many in Congress push to allow guns everywhere, including workplaces. But there is one place where one cannot carry a gun – the Capitol building. Congress claims people have a right to carry a gun into your workplace but not their workplace. Perhaps there is a way to reduce gun violence: sell bullets for $5000 each.

17. Bigot Christmas. Savage invites Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (theirs, not yours) over for dinner for a debate, which was uploaded to YouTube. The chapter's title comes from the intense cleaning and planning done in August, normally only done at Christmas, so that Savage could host a bigot. The general consensus (except among the anti-gay crowd) is that Savage won the debate. Brown used too much circular reasoning.

Now back to the chapters I had skipped before. I am discussing them last because they hit too close to my current situation.

1. At a loss. Savage grew up Catholic. Though he now says he is atheist he recognizes he is still culturally Catholic. After his mother died he felt the need to sit in Catholic churches. That's where he felt closest to his mother and it gave him some comfort. But even while there he knew he could never be a member of a Catholic church again, couldn't even go through the motions, because their anti-gay stance is so strong.

13. Extended Stay. Savage declares his support for the Death with Dignity movement, which allows terminal patients to choose to die on their own terms. His mother had pulmonary fibrosis, a degenerative lung condition. She thought she was doing well when she lived longer than the original five year prognosis. But then her condition dramatically worsened. At a moment when his stepfather was away from the hospital room the doctor told Savage he needed an answer now – put her on a ventilator where she might last a couple more days but in a coma, leave her with an oxygen mask where she would last maybe six hours (not enough time for his other two siblings to arrive), or remove the mask where she would likely suffocate in less than two hours. Explaining all that to your mother is an awful position for a son to be in. She chose to remove the mask, though before she did frantic calls were made to her other children. He will be haunted by a couple questions: Though she was given lots of pain medication, were her last hours filled with pain? Would it have been better to end her life immediately and not go through the suffocation?

Yes, way too close to my situation with my Dad.

If blacks are disadvantaged, then whites are ... advantaged?

Back in 1990 Peggy McIntosh published an essay on White Privilege. While whites are taught to see blacks as disadvantaged, they rarely look at the reverse -- being white has advantages. Most of us whites just assume that's how the world works. She gives 50 examples of how whites are privileged over other races in America. Here are some of them:

* I can go shopping alone and be assured I won't be followed or harassed.
* I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own protection.
* I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.
* I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
* I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.
* I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

B. Deutsch followed McIntosh's list with ways in which men are privileged. Some examples:

* The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
* If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
* If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.
* Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
* If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

There is also a corresponding list for straight privilege (written by a college student).

* I can be pretty sure that my roommate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
* I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
* I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
* I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
* My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
* Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.