I am still fuming over the Sam Adams situation (incidentally, despite the uproar, Sam Adams the beer magnate/founding father still comes up in Google Images above our mayor), and I have to elaborate on it just a bit more. When people say he lied (about his relationship with Beau Breedlove) in order to get himself elected, I don't get it. Do they mean he wouldn't have been elected mayor if it was known he'd had a (brief) sexual relationship with a younger man? If so, ISN'T THAT MAYBE A PROBLEM WE THE PUBLIC HAVE, that we should look at, instead of demonizing Adams? Sam is not Bill Clinton - he doesn't have a wife to be cheating on! That's why I don't believe people when they say this is about whether he lied or not. And the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. How many of you can honestly say you never tell a lie for any reason? I think it's far more likely that Sam lied to protect his privacy and prevent people from freaking out - just as they're doing right now! - than to get himself elected.
I just saw a news clip about how Adams supporters are banding together on the internet. (I'm planning to attend the City Hall rally next Tuesday, at least the first part of it, since I have to be to class by 1pm.) They had a timid, apologetic looking young fellow on there talking about how Sam made a mistake...but that shouldn't be the end of his run as mayor. That's a way more apologetic stance than we should be taking on this issue. What I intended to do with my letter to WW is TO TURN THE TABLES ON JOURNALISTS - I am one! - and ask THEM To hold themselves to a higher standard of journalistic integrity and look at the way THEY participate in these modern-day witch hunts. The way WW just rubs itself with oleaginous glee over being the first to break this putrid story - they have to remind you every five seconds - just makes me sick! And now for Marty Davis to join the chorus - the publisher of Just Out! - is the ultimate insult. Think about what you're participating in! I don't even care that I freelance for Just Out, I'm going to say it. I only have a month or two to go anyway.
Speaking of things that are gay. I got an issue of OUT Magazine last night, a leftover from the gay.com account I canceled (or at least stopped paying for) a while back. It has a few good articles in it, and I'm not going to deny I love some nice glossy eye candy as much as anyone, and yet, I see it as a good example of the way mainstream gay publications push an identity that you're supposed to adhere to if you're a good gay. Well, I'm not a good gay, and I never will be. I look at other gay bloggers and many of them toe the line, with encomiums to Madonna (I heard a new song of hers accidentally at a bar a while back and it sounded like "Get Into the Groove" just sort of re-mixed! But I think it was a new song, the lyrics were different. How funny/pathetic), obligatory cattiness, every shallow thing you can think of, virtually nothing intellectual. Gays are being dumbed down like everyone else. And their editor came off as such a moron. A reader who wrote in with constructive criticisms that were actually perfectly valid was treated to a snarky, dismissive response that didn't even make sense. It's things like this that make me feel I'm not a part of the gay community any more than I am part of any other community.
I think I'm gonna try to write for OUT. Subvert from within, baby!
"Gays are being dumbed down like everyone else...It's things like this that make me feel I'm not a part of the gay community any more than I am part of any other community."
ReplyDeleteVery good point! I like to laugh as much as the next guy, but I occasionally need something to feed my mind and soul. Eye candy is good, but candy cannot sustain a healthy life.
My interest in Madonna preceded knowing what "gay" even meant.
ReplyDeleteThere is a secondary stereotype of gay men, usually above 30, railing against the shallowness of the "gay community" in order to make themselves seem better by comparison. But does the "gay community" really even exist?
Now, if you like something merely because it's something the GC is supposed to like (such as the karaoke singer I saw the other week who sang "It's Raining Men") that may be shallow. However, should you not like something specifically because the GC likes it? That seems like an even graver crime of logic.
I know Madge was the sort of weak example to reach for, I should probably have reached deeper, but she was on my mind when I wrote that. I don't think I'm trying to make myself "better"...just different, with more varied interests than some indoctrinated queers. I rarely go to gay bars and the majority of my friends aren't that way, although of course, bars are where you go to pick people up, and I'm on a big celibate streak. Also, I spent some time looking at gay blogs the other day - not just the porno ones - and I didn't feel a lot of...common interest with many of the things being promoted there. But thank you for your response...Snarky, was it?
ReplyDelete