Just saw a funny South Park about how the whole town falls prey to the “gay chic” fad. It got me thinking about a book I read for my sociology class last semester. It’s called “All The Rage” by Suzanna Danuta Walters. It was one of the more interesting non-fiction books I have read regarding gay culture. Her thesis is pretty simple; although gay visibility has increased in the mainstream media, such visibility can not be equated with true acceptance.
The South Park touched on another theme Walters mentions regarding the acceptable gay types. Citing heavily Will and Grace, she demonstrates that most gay characters are either 1) effete and flagrant, or 2) straight wannabees. Walters is afraid that the public embrace of homosexuality is really, for most, an embrace of these very rigid stereotypes. So gays become either the exotic other, or the guy next door.
I’m at this point in my life where I am questioning how I’m going to make sense of all of this. At college I deliberately pushed peoples’ buttons at times, and was pretty flagrant. That was fun. I needed it, and Trinity certainly needed it. But on the other hand, I never wanted that to be it. All the while I felt the need to be strong in other areas, like academics and the Tripod, etc. etc… I guess for those four years I had my cake and ate it too. I could be in your face, but I could never be accused of just being that and nothing more – i.e. both the brain and the wardrobe were kickin’.
But now that college is over, and I’m attempting to be an adult, I’m thinking about how I re-channel things. I guess one of the tangible indicators that has brought this on is my dress. I have an internship downtown, and dress pretty reasonably – basically I feel like any other straight guy. I could totally get away with dressing it up at this place, but I’m hesitant to do so. Why? Because frankly I’m tired of the accusations that “minorities” get special treatment. Well, not quite accusations, but just turn to others’ blogs, and you will see that many think it even if they dare not utter it face to face. I don’t want stupid detractors to have that over me.
So is the option to become a total straight square? Well, in a way that sounds like a total capitulation to the conservative forces that be. “You should be ashamed!” they claim, and therefore I clean up my act. That’s totally unacceptable. I’m lead to the same conclusion that I’ve come to many times before. The simple truth is that if you are going to be out, you have to be better. Okay that’s really vague. What I’m saying is this: Being out is a good thing. However, because people will question the legitimacy of your accomplishments simply because you are out, those accomplishments must be genuine and better than most others’. This way you win on all fronts, you get to be out (cake,) and you can put the “special rights” people in their place (eating it.)
Some may find it unfortunate that in order to just be, and to be taken as seriously as the next guy, they have to be better than the next guy. Perhaps it is. But then again, being out is both privilege and responsibility. People hate me for saying this because it pits me against things such as affirmative action. Perhaps I’m not sensitive enough, and I’d like to be. But I’ve had a class taught by a black judge who got his position in no small part thanks to AA; the chip on his shoulder was evident in everything. It is kind of sad to see individuals in positions of such great honor forced to prove themselves to people half their age. With black people, the sad truth is that one can’t hide one’s skin color, and for at least our lifetimes, it is going to mean something to a lot of people – a lot of cultured, educated and powerful people. So blacks have to work harder to truly be perceived as equal.
Perhaps instead of being a point of divisiveness between the black and gay communities, this idea can be a bridge. We should consider ourselves so lucky that we have the choice of whether or not to take on this struggle. I personally say do it, perhaps because I’ve always been an overachiever. But there are others who won’t wish the burden or the skepticism, and will remain in the closet (or at least for the most part.) Black people can’t decide not to be black.
I think a more realistic approach to sexuality would be to say the following to kids around high school: “Some people are straight, some are gay. If you are gay, you now are lucky to live in a country where you will, for the most part, not face blatant discrimination based on your sexual orientation by authorities. However, no matter how many legal victories are won, the court of public opinion is still out deliberating. This means that while some people will wholeheartedly embrace you, others will not accept you. There is, though, another category of people who will publicly embrace you but privately comfort themselves by believing that anything you have accomplished is due, in some significant part, to your self-identified status as a minority. To these individuals, rightly or not, a self-professed minority status is seen to equate with victim hood. Thus viewed as a victim, they will see your accomplishments as thanks to scraps of good will or pity bestowed upon you. These people, not the blatant homophobes, will be the most difficult ones for you to deal with. You can chose not to address these concerns, but if you are sensitive to how others perceive you, you will have to. Although you may not feel that it is just, in order to do so, you must be doubly sincere and hard working in all that you do. We have created a culture in which self-professed minorities have to prove themselves above and beyond their individual abilities. This is not always easy, but is the route to openness and equality.”
Okay, I’m starting to repeat myself – so what do you guys think on this one… I know I’ve covered a lot of ground, but if you don’t know by know, that how I think, outwardly and expansively rather than inwardly. Simplify! Banks! Can’t trust em!
I can completely understand how you wouldn’t want to conform to any stereotype – you’ve always tried to avoid those. But I don’t think your options are as limited as (1) being a queen and conforming to the gay stereotype, or (2) dressing like a regular guy and feeling like you’re a straight wannabe. Between those two, what else is there to be?
I think capitulation occurs on the psychological side, rather than the fashion side. Dressing “straight” because you wish you were straight and dressing “straight” because you want to look like any other professional are two different mindsets and two different things. Dressing professionally doesn’t mean hiding who you are. I have something of the stereotypical scatter-brained artist in me, which means I’m more comfortable in T-shirts, grubby slacks, and sneakers than I am in the polo shirts and nice pants that I wear to work. When I go to work in the nice stuff, I don’t see myself caving in to public disapproval and being something I’m not, I see myself as dressing for the occasion.
I’m also surprised that you think that minorities don’t get special treatment. What do you call affirmative action? That’s not a nasty comment about minorities, that’s a statement of fact. If you’re a member of a minority, you’ll be considered more seriously for certain positions, period. That’s preferential treatment if I ever heard it, and I wonder if maybe that’s why some black people are so defensive about their achievements. Perhaps they’re concerned that people think they only got where they did because of the bones tossed to them by society, like you said, as opposed to fearing condescension solely because they’re black.
It’s for this reason that I wonder sometimes why so many minorities support AA – sure, you may get farther than you otherwise would have, but if you’re putting yourself in a position where the authenticity of your achievements may be questioned, where are you really? Discrimination is discrimination, whether it works for you or against you, and in the end, it causes a lot more problems than it solves. I don’t – and never did – automatically consider anyone in a minority a victim, or an incompetent beneficiary of PC guilt, but staying open-minded like that is not easy, especially when the same minorities that emphasize pride and self-sufficiency insist that they’re victims who need special treatment.
I think this is where affirmative action is most destructive: it seems to me that AA, more than social prejudice, creates the need for minorities to prove themselves above and beyond their individual abilities. As an example, one would expect that minorities attending an institution where people are admitted on the basis of merit alone are there because they fully deserve to be, and they therefore must already be hard workers. But if the institution admittedly uses race as a factor in its admissions process, one might well wonder whether the minorities are there because they’re hard workers or because the administration decided that Trini – er, the aforementioned hypothetical institution needs to be more diverse. Unfair as this is, there might be some who will be more doubtful of the abilities of the minorities, because there is the possibility that they got a leg up.
Like I said, I personally did not assume that the minority kids at Trinity were lazy quotient-fillers, but I could see how that kind of assumption could quietly exist. I’m with you in that I think it’s sad that certain people must prove themselves more than others must, but I think this is due in no small part to the quick fix we’re trying to use against this very problem: preferential treatment that builds resentment and the passive condescension toward those who benefit from that treatment. Simplify, simplify. Don’t discriminate, don’t prefer, let the hard workers get where they should be and allow the less motivated ones to fail, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.