Just because I'm a fag, it doesn't mean I'm a bitch

This week I received an email from an editor at a publication that's been noted for its homophobia. Here's most of it with grammar intact:

I need a gay male (just wrote gale!) freelancer to do a story...about this course they're teaching at the university of michigan, how to be gay. (one of the staffers saw it on perez hilton; http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?BG/317descr) wondered if you could do something like, "I did think that all it took to be gay was sleeping w/men, but turns out I was wrong." that kind of thing. then talk to the prof, talk to other gay men -- maybe someone like carson kressley (he's got a new show so I'm sure he'd give you a quote). that kind of thing. find out what exactly it takes to be gay. should be funny. haha. yeah, a lot of you being funny.

I'd need 800 words tomorrow at noon. [Payment redacted]. you in?

I should say up front that by revealing this, I am not slyly bragging: a friend of a co-worker of this editor suggested me for the job simply because I'm a homosexual who can (probably) string a sentence or two together. It wasn't personal at all. And that, I came to realize, was the problem.

I didn't even read the email too closely before turning it down: I received this around 3:30 p.m. and that turnaround time was just absurd. First of all, I think starting a work arrangement off by inadvertently suggesting that you'd drop anything, including your spine, to take a job is a way to announce yourself as a bitch to be taken advantage of. For any future work that should come your way from this employer, you will need to assume the position and bend over. But even more than that, the proposed task was impossible anyway. I'm not privy to the homo hotline in which Professor David Halperin and Carson Kressley are perpetually hanging on, waiting to comment on whatever comes their way. Or maybe it's just that I'm just not cool like Carson Kressley.

So, whatever, it was a no-brainer: physical impossibility meant a quick reply of, "Thanks for the consideration, but I will not be able to turn this around by the deadline you gave." And that was that. Except, it wasn't. After I sent the email, I thought about the gig some more and I started to get really offended. Not as a person, not even as a gay person, but as a gay person who prides himself on being...well, not Carson Kressley. It seems to me that this editor could have written the story herself: clearly, she knew exactly what she wanted, right down to the writer's point of view. My ideas, at the very least, were unnecessary. What if, for example, I didn't think that all there was to being gay was sleeping with men? What if I already had considered homosexuality and its implications in a non-bedroom context? Most importantly, what if the very idea of spelling out "exactly" what it takes to be gay was inherently offensive to me? (For the record, to answer my own questions, I didn't, I had, and it is.) Since the idea was so clearly laid out, I don't think that she was calling on a gay man for an insider's perspective, per se. I think it more has to do with finding someone that could pigeon-hole his brothers on behalf of a publication and then take all responsibility away from said publication because: HA! He can't be homophobic; he's gay! "Pansy" is but one letter away from "patsy," and that's the kind of bitch I'm especially not trying to be.

I'm not trying to say that this person who contacted me is hateful -- I don't think she is, actually. Overly familiar? Yes. (I mean, "I need a gay male"? Quota much?) Hateful? Doubtful. What she was going for was a haha humorous thing. I think she wanted something that's probably more lighthearted than I'd be inclined to deliver on this subject. In giving her the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to assume that the quota thing is much like when people like Kathy Griffin refer to their gay friends as "their gays," as though their sexuality makes them emotionally interchangeable. It's that myopic, old-person, but not bad-natured way of thinking. It's annoying (I tell Tracie all the time that the minute I become a quota fulfillment to her is the minute we stop speaking), but at least it's not a condemnation to hell. That's something, right?

See, the more I think about it, the more proud I am to have turned down that piece. The editor didn't want a gay man but a gay, a human handbag that would do what she wanted (much like the way Kathy Griffin would call on her gays for fashion advice or to accompany her to see Céline Dion), including the legwork to support her idea. I may be taking the proposed gig and/or myself too seriously here, but representation is such a vital thing, I think, and that's not the way I want to represent myself. If you're distilling your very being down to just sexuality, you're dehumanizing yourself before anyone truly hateful can get to you. It's a defense mechanism, maybe, but it's so so harmful.

And that people do it in masses (per the still very one-note portrayal of gays in the media, for example) is all the more abhorrent. The more uniform we are, the easier we are to dehumanize, the easier we are to hate. (And I'm not trying to persecute the persecuted, but emphasize the importance of proactivity.) This is why something like Dumbledore's outing was, as beautifully described by Mark Harris, sly and brilliant activism -- he'd long been humanized before his sexuality was even considered. And it's why someone like William Sledd is capable of single-handedly redefining the term "gay disease." When your angle, your sole or even main selling point is that you're gay, you are a minstrel show with terrible music (probably trance). You are hazardous and you suck. It's that simple.

(Full disclosure: Bravo's frequent rewarding of gay minstrelsy, including giving Sledd his own reality show, had at least 50 percent to do with my disinterest in covering this season of Project Runway. Sorry, I no longer feel comfortable spending hours and hours a week supporting a network that, despite its pretensions, doesn't support my humanity. Any visibility is not good visibility.)

(Full disclosure No. 2: I'm not hating on anyone's mannerisms here -- William Sledd sucks not because he is effeminate, but because he has nothing, not even a morsel of cleverness, to offer beyond his sexuality. On the other hand, I'm all for an independent thinker like Chris Crocker busting in and getting a platform to share his bonkers world view. I wish he weren't as taken by his own fame as he currently seems to be, but besides that blip, I think Chris Crocker is actually extremely good for society because he is plainly and simply, an articulate freak. We need as many of them as we can get.)

And don't get me wrong: my sexuality informs so so much about me and, especially, what I do. I feel nothing less than quintessentially gay all of the time (and especially when I use the word "quintessentially"). But really, if there's not anything more to me than stereotypes and predictability, I might as well quit communicating now. Obviously, since I haven't, I have faith that I have at least a little more than bitchiness and girl-worship to offer. And that's the thing about the How To Be Gay class that I think may miss the point (although I obviously haven't taken it, and I do think that despite some semantic problems, it's well-intentioned). The gay experience is actually so splintered that about the only across-the-board common factor we share is the option of picking up whatever splinter we want, in terms of interest and behavior. From a taste standpoint (which is clearly the standpoint I'm most concerned with always), we're allowed to like whatever we want to like, without really getting bogged down by the stigmas that straight men might be more inclined to care about. We can watch football and coo over Mariah. We can drink beer and have a side of no-fat Cool Whip. Sure, some gay guys are concerned with being as masculine as possible (the conceptual paradox of hyper-masculinity be damned), but I think that largely, we don't have to worry about being persecuted for our interests because we're already persecuted. We've already been beat up for wearing high heels, whether they're actually in our closet or not, you know? There's a whole world of possibility that we have the unique situation of being privy to. It seems to me that to not take advantage of that, to merely stay within what is considered typical behavior and interests, to uphold this queer status quo, is to revoke your cultural birthright as a gay male. 

What exactly does it take to be gay? It depends on the person, and how willing he is to actually be one.

Comments

[craig]

this is fantastic stuff.

[Ricky]

I wish you were my friend and/or in our circle of friends.

[raymi]

totally insulting and rude i get email offers like these from time-to-time, people have very little etiquette on the internet, can you do this for me in one hour? fuck off.

[tiffany]

my friends and i have talked about this kind of thing at length, and how in some odd way for them its kind of freeing to be gay, because the ppl that hate you already hate you for all the things they think you might do, so whats the point in trying to impress them? i agree with you that the offer was insulting, in an almost 'i think i am really hip but somehow i skipped 10 years of learning to get that way so i'm like a wal-mart version of hip' kinda way.

[M]

This post is one of the many reasons that I love you. Rich, you rock.

[JR]

I know that the following sentence may totally miss the point of what you just said, but I'm going to say it anyway. Rich, you are the best thing that ever happened to homos on the internet.

[tiffany]

i also don't think its very fair for everyone in middle america to think that they can join in and give the "gays" a "good-natured ribbing" just because they watched a few episodes of will and grace. its very dehumanizing and "processed for your protection"

[Lucky]

Brilliant! My question: Can gays have their own gays?

[theodora]

rich, you never cease to amaze me. you hit the nail on the head.

[bob smith]

and the ad that follows this: "how to look good naked by carson kressley"
haha, funny, indeed.

[Bach]

Rich, this piece is fucking brilliant! The ending damn nears soars in its truth and in its searing clarity. Thank you for rocking my cyber-world. This is what pride is about & you can bet I'll be walking back to my office with my head held a little higher today for reading this.

[K]

The editor in this situation was way off. I followed the link to the course description, and not only does the class seem like a thoughtful & meaningful discussion of issues surrounding homosexuality, but it's a level 300 course offered only to students who have taken the necessary requirements. It's not some silly course that can be turned into a "funny" article. In that sense the entire request was pointless.

[bigpikchur]

Excellent post, as always.
Jules
House of Jules

[Torrin Paige]

You know, Rich, I started reading your blog for ProjRun recaps, went back and read every ANTM recap even though I don't watch the show, find your reviews of horror movies to be usually spot on (I kind of love torture-porn horror for it's own merits, even if I am a chick, but I have been accused of being misogynistic), absolutely love your clip shows and pop-culture commentary,and, like so many, just generally enjoy the hell out of Winston. It's posts like this one, however, that remind me why I check your blog on a daily basis. I love you, Rich. Thank you for sharing.

[ec]

From a writer's perspective, her offer is offensive enough.

Whatever happened to letting stories develop themselves as you research the topic, instead of researching a topic merely to get quotes for the story you've already written in your head?!?

[Katie]

Excellent post, you are an incredible writer. I've always loved your wit, and your kitty Winston! (more Winston pics please!) I have even more respect for your intellect now than I did. Kudos to you for turning down her offer. I would have been insulted too if I were you.

[Akasha]

Great post. I am forwarding it on. That editor was totally out of line. So many people think it's OK to stereotype and marginalize groups. As a Black female, I am pissed off with you! Oh, and kisses to Winston.

[Leanne]

I caught myself doing the same thing. When my mom came out of the closet a few years ago she was just an average housewife, not a shaven head, militant "dyke" with a million cats (going on stereotypes here), so when all of us asked what she was going to do next (get a tattoo? a Harley? go vegan?) she was bewildered and said "Why can't I just be gay and live my life?"

[Alicia]

Rich, you have so much grace! I admire that you didn't go Super Fly TNT on aforementioned fucktard editor. And even in venting your frustration about the situation, you kept it classy and articulate. You inspire me!

Quintessentially! Mermaids! Gay!

[bee]

you know... i naturally assumed the editor was a dude.

[Lea]

Wow, speaking of stereo-types and homosexuality, I was taking a sick day yesterday and ended up watching Tyra. I don't if this was an old show but it had this "scientist" on there saying he could tell a gay man from a straight man with a series of test. The tests were very stereotypical. You know,"gay men normally act like this and you are acting like this, so therefore, you are gay"

Anyway, it was pretty offensive on so many levels and if you add in Tyra's usual antics, you can imagine the horror of that show.

[Shawn-Shawn]

Thank you for this really well-articulated, thoughtful discussion on perceptions of what it is to be gay. I think that homosexuality can be easier for people to swallow if they can boil it down into a few stereotypes that seem benign and mainstream, rather than having to focus on individuals, the nuances of culture, etc.

As a gay man, I think that one issue that arises from this discussion is that so many gay men themselves have a really narrow definition of what it is to be gay that they frequently perpetuate stereotypes in order to feel "part of the culture," even if it's not representative of themselves. "You don't don't summer in P-town or Fire Island? You're not a Liza fan? What kind of gay are you?" I hear it all the time. The fact that I'm gay means so much to me, and it also means a lot about me. But is it tantamount to my personality? Can someone of have a clear or accurate notion of who I am based solely on my sexuality and nothing else? No.

I would hope that no one is that one-dimensional, though I think that, because of mainstream cultural depictions of gay men, a lot of people would like to think that they are.

[Jennifer]

I went to U of M and as I women's studies major I knew a lot of people who took the class (they began to offer it I believe 3 years ago) and said it was awesome. And that professor is very well respected at the University. You should forward that e-mail to him...I think he would appreaciate it.

[Joe]

Very simply and eloquently stated, Rich. You should forward this to the editor and see if she has the balls to print it.

[racheee]

Oh the irony! The entire class seems to be focused on dissecting and deconstructing exactly that which that abominable editor wants you to do with gay male sexuality. It's about her need, and society's need, to create these stereotypes and how they form. In the course description Halperin states:

"Rather than attempting to promote one version of gay identity at the expense of others, this course will investigate the stakes in gay identifications and disidentifications, seeking ultimately to create the basis for a wider acceptance of the plurality of ways in which people determine how to be gay."

The course is actually ABOUT how gays are represented in the media, in literature, and in personal identity. I wonder if that woman even read the class description, I'm guessing she did not or was too dense to understand what Prof. Halperin is doing with the course.

P.S. You kick ass.

[mysterygirl!]

K and Racheee already said what I was going to say, but I'll go ahead and be repetitive. David Halperin is a very important scholar, and his class sounds like it is designed to interrogate the very ideas that that editor is tossing around in her e-mail. I have no interest in reading the kind of uninformed, marginalizing article that that editor seems to want, and I'm glad (though not surprised) that you have no interest in writing it.

[MsKit2u]

I love you because not only are you pretty and fluffy, you're so, so, smart.

Thatnk you for once again saying what needs to be said in a way that is accessible to the masses.

Love and Rainbow Brite,

Me:

A black
and
A gay

;)

[Miss Lisa]

There was a sitcom that had a straight man meeting a gay man and saying, I know a gay guy in Chicago: Bob. You know each other? And the gay man says, Oh yeah, Gay Bob from Chicago. Yeah, I know him.

That email reminded me of that scene.

[Blane]

I really loved this post. It reminded me so much of own experience. I moved to New York five years ago for school. Often I would get girls saying things like "you're gay! awesome! WE should go shopping!". Mind you, I do not like to shop or relatively no nothing about fashion. And while these girls did not mean badly, it is insulting. I felt like these were just girls who wanted to be the girls from Sex and The City, and a gay man was just another accessory to them. Anyway. I can't say it as well as you did. But thank you for putting it out there.

[RD]

I just love the fact that I've changed William Sledd's life by being on YouTube and I've never heard of him until I read this post.

This post, by the way, reminds me so much of a gay lit class I had before I graduated from UNC. I can assure you, Rich, that the class was not about Carson Kressley/Sledd types.

[Douglas Porter]

~*~kisses~*~

[Ern]

Truly great post, articulate and interesting.

[Jim]

In advance, I don't mean any of this to be bitchy. I appreciate that a blog post even made me think. That said, I found myself disagreeing with a number of things.

I was all there with you until <>: William Sledd is a minstrel and Chris Crocker is articulate? Sure, Sledd might embody a stereotype and revel in it, but how is that a bad thing? Sure he's shameless in his own self-promotion, and he's a total supernelly, but I've always thought William Sledd owned up to that. Chris Crocker was too busy allowing himself to be mocked and failing to contribute to the dialogue.

In terms of the class, I think the title was meant to provoke, so I doubt it's a semantics issue so much as a perception issue.

Lastly, while I've always been opposed to Queer Eye, is that much else on Bravo really minstrelsy? And by promoting one show, are you really supporting the entire programming slate? I mean, I love The Simpsons, but I hate Bill O'Reilly. Fox owns them both. Why pick on Bravo based on one former program and one that you're aggravated about in advance?

And all of this is my long way of saying: bring back the Project Runway posts!

[joe-back mountain]

I find it fascinating how it is ok to be one type of "gay". As if all gay men are this big interchangeable lego man. I think there isn't a way to do that logically. Rich you and I are both gay, but that is possibly were the similarities end, or possibly continue. This random assortment of facts and figures that make up our lives is what is so special. It is super offensive to be the expert on what ever statistical group you are in just because you are a member. You handled yourself brilliantly.

[jasmine]

I love you. I, literally, check this site everyday. It's not even in my bookmarks, it's in my toolbar. That's how important it is. I check my email, my Flickr, bestweekever.tv, then you. Even if you haven't updated, I find myself just staring at the screen or finding older things to read. That's all.

(my lame blog)

[kathy]

I agree with you and the commenters who say this is a great post. I appreciate the way your right on point of view comes through in all the important topics you write about -- homophobia, music, tv shows, relationships with pets, etc.

[Tundrababe]

You're exactly right about this:

I don't think that she was calling on a gay man for an insider's perspective, per se. I think it more has to do with finding someone that could pigeon-hole his brothers on behalf of a publication and then take all responsibility away from said publication because: HA! He can't be homophobic; he's gay!

That's so offensive. Although, I'm almost equally offended by the stupid email she sent you. There's absolutely nothing professional about it.

Who's William Sledd? I've never heard of him. I don't think Bravo and Project Runway are minstrel like - the new season showcased gay people with all sorts of personalities and has treated everyone equal, as far as I can see. Is there something specific on Bravo you find offensive? I don't want to support something offensive, but I just don't see it. I think Miss J on America's Next Top Model is more of a minstrel figure than anyone on Bravo that I've seen.

[ihaveneverinmylifeyelledatagirllikethis]

Not to join the jack-off-train too much, but honestly Rich you are one of the most clever, insightful writers online and I wish you'd write posts like this more often. I understand that your blog focuses on pop culture (and I LOVE it and you for that), but when you talk about serious topics like this one, you show how much more to your talents there is beyond animated gifs. Thanks.

[dawn]

Ha -- I just stumbled you and I wasn't the first one! That makes me happy! Rich, I adore you. I rarely comment but I just wanted to say how happy I am that you blog!!!!

[Barby]

I'm so glad that you posted about this. I've often commented on my blog about how I think Kathy Griffin is hilarious, but I hate how she always refers to "her gays." I've always found that so demeaning, but I could never verbalize exactly why.

Eloquently put. Hope you don't mind if I make a link to this entry on my blog.

[jackie]

this was amazingly well-written. thanks for sharing your insights, you rule!

[mykull]

Rich, You are brilliant and funny and original. And this post kicks serious ass. The Advocate should hire you as a regular columnist NOW. They need voices like yours.

[Mickey]

Rich,

I go to U of M. I returned last year to finish two undergrad degrees I started. Anyway, the most controversial thing about this course is probably the title. The professor, obviously, has acknowledged the sensational nature of the title. Last year, a writer for the student newspaper, the Michigan Daily, wrote an article reflecting on his experience in the course (http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2007/02/14/TheStatement/How-David.Halperin.Taught.Me.To.Be.Gay.sort.Of-2718774.shtml).

I enjoyed your post today. It is very insightful. Also, it's interesting how it can be both simultaneously easy and quite difficult to write about something that is near and dear to one, and which you've ruminated on. My freshman year at U of M, I took a Latino Studies course. Nearly everyone in the course self-identified as a latino. Halperin's course is not an ethnic studies course, per say. Though the class reminds me why such a course would appeal to students. Students, at least some within the large student body, are looking to find themselves (I know, it's cliche). This class has been around for a few years already too. It's not new. But, what surprises me is that the title, at the very least, gets people thinking. Granted, their thinking may reveal some superficial thoughts...but, I think, they are thinking.

Well, I am all done rambling.
Thanks for your post, Rich.

[Grete]

I appreciated this very much.

Thanks! :)

[Amber]

Well good for you! Even apart from the gay stereotyping, she came across as being very arrogant and condescending. Whether she meant to or not, it came out that way. Good for you!

[Jacquie]

Well done. Glad you kept editorial control and posted your thoughts here instead of for the editor. As a huge admirer of your unique, distinct writers voice, I was further offended that she would not want to pay you to write your thoughts on the course more or less carte blanche in your own style. If paying editors do not know your work (beyond a label) and talent they don't deserve you.

[AZ]

Just out of curiosity, have you actually read the course description of the UM class? I did, and it doesn't seem nearly as reductionist or one-dimensional as you make it out to be.

Here is an excerpt from the course description:

"This course will examine the general topic of the role that initiation plays in the formation of gay male identity. We will approach it from three angles: (1) as a sub-cultural practice — subtle, complex, and difficult to theorize — which a small but significant body of work in queer studies has begun to explore; (2) as a theme in gay male writing; and (3) as a class project, since the course itself will constitute an experiment in the very process of initiation that it hopes to understand."

You can read the full course description here: http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?BG/317descr

That does not read to me like it is trying to reduce all gay men to being one thing. Except that the one thing that almost all gay men have in common is that at some point they were "initiated"--either sexually, culturally, or politically. I believe thinking critically about the rituals of initiation, and people's particular experiences of similarity and difference during this process, is something that would benefit many of us. Not just gay men.

I totally think you did the right thing by turning down that assignment--it's asinine and beneath you. But I wonder if you should throw Halperin's class-as-baby out with the bathwater.

[Sarah]

I just wanted to comment that, in my opinion, the only characteristics that separate gay men as a group from straight men as a group is their sexual orientation. Any other characteristic you can name probably exists in sufficiently equal numbers in both groups. That may have been the editor's point of view, communicated inartfully. Yes, you are more than just your sexuality and yes our sexuality is a big part of who we are. But all of the other unique traits that make up who you are also found in straight men -- and in women. So... I'm not sure what's wrong with suggesting that the only quality that "makes you gay" is the actually being gay part.

[Queen Lena]

"He speaks so well!!"

I know that was actually about black people (from one of Chris Rock's comedy shows), but for some reason, it's the first thing I thought of when I finished reading this.

That editor was way out of line, and it was totally classy of you not to reveal her identity.

Like always, eloquent and insightful. You are the love of my internets life.

[jay]

Thank you so much for this post. Things like this need to be said. I have only a few friends that know my true sexuality and only 4 of them treat it as a secondary if not tertiary trait, they never bring it up. I do have a few friends that I feel I need to put on a show around them in order to fit that stereotype or quota. Half the time I do it just to see their reaction, but afterwards I feel disgusted. It's nice to hear reaffirmation that that the most important aspect of being gay and accepting it is that we are being ourselves, first and foremost. It seems that once we get past that one step, a lot of us tend to try and "act the part". I have so much respect for you after reading this post. Although you got my respect quite a while ago based on your love for early 90' R&B!! take care!

much love

jay

[lisa]

Just wanted to join in on the love. This post is awesome. xoxo to you, Winston and Rudy, who all brighten my day, here in Slovenia.

[zuzu's Petals]

I'm really scared to bits that someone actually sent that letter.

They are lucky that you didn't reveal them. A lesser human (such as myself) would make a point to expose them.

[Bogatyr]

Rich,
Yes. As others have commented...articulate, interesting, great, funny, eloquent...no question. But. The editor was looking to get 1) a rise out of some gay guy, and 2) perhaps some article written for her rag by said gay guy. Mission accomplished, however roundabout or sneaky it may have been. She wanted an article on a gay viewpoint...what exactly it takes to be gay. Looks like (if she looks here) she got what she wanted.
Ten bucks says your post will be at least referred to in said homophobic publication in the coming months. Maybe you'll be approached to see if it can be published. (For the record: 1,534 words.) Or maybe they'll just publish the URL.

And a full $100 says your post will be required reading by David Halperin by the end of the term.

[Cheryl Merkowski]

A++++.

AMEN!

[Lisa]

Wow. Just wow.

First off, as a Journalism major, the way her e-mail is written is just APPALLING. She's an EDITOR?? Granted, I don't edit myself well in personal correspondence via e-mail or chatting online, but as a Journalism professional, she should be a little more put together than that when offering a job to someone. Crikey.

Secondly, bravo to you for taking this stand. I completely agree. I am a hetero woman who just so happens to have two best friends that are gay men. But I do not, and never have, looked at them as my "gay friends". I look at them as my friends, and them being gay has nothing to do with that. I'm friends with them because of the people we are, the things we share, and how we enjoy each other's company. It doesn't matter a bit to me what their sexuality is, just as mine does not matter to them. (No one ever refers to me as their "straight friend" or "hetero girl".)

[Strega Nona]

I am a long time lurker here, and I just felt the need to delurk and say: congratulations on a heart felt and well thought out article. I always enjoy your writing, and this is no exception.

I sort of feel sorry for this editor. People who coast through life and are never challenged by others or themselves often seem to be the most supremely insensitive. I can't quite articulate what I am trying to say. Obviously this editor is part of the 'establishment' - the accepted and 'main stream' part of our society. The feeling I got from her writing was that she feels it's ok to either dehumanise or make fun of people who are not like her.

It's not ok.

I wonder what else she holds antiquated views about?

Keep up the good work. You are a fantastic writer.

[Julia]

Again, thank you for not stooping to her level.

The course was first offered 7 years ago. I worked in the English Dept. at the time, and was actually the one to post it on the time schedule:), I was also one of many in our Dept. who forwarded angry calls to the Chair of the Dept. from numbskulls who were "appalled that we were offering a course on how to be gay." "What are we paying these Professors for, to teach pornography?"
Were they serious? YES
Did they bother to read the course description? NO, of course not.
One man came to the class to spy on the course, he wore a Hawaiin shirt, I guess he wanted to blend in..I guess he wanted to find a Professor teaching kids how to sashay across the stage and brainwash unsuspecting male students into liking all things Midler.
Puleez.

I will always defend this most thoughtful and intelligent course.

Julia

[kate]

What a brilliant, eloquent, and utterly insightful post. While I read your site frequently for your humor and your occasional ghastly taste in music, I am glad that I can now also read it for your advanced consciousness and strong personal beliefs. No one should be so callously regarded as that editor clearly regards you.

[M]

I've noticed the "gay man as accessory" trend as well, and I find it pretty disturbing.

Great article with many quotable bits, but this part was my favourite: "When your angle, your sole or even main selling point is that you're gay, you are a minstrel show with terrible music (probably trance)." Hee, trance.

[gebba]

I love it when you write about pop culture and bitch out Tyra Banks... but this post blew that all out of the water. This is so much of what I have been thinking lately but have not been able to put into words, and even more ideas that had never occurred to me. Kudos!

[Bobby]

i see this kind of thing all the time in many other forms - i mean you don't need to be a freelance writer to get pigeon-holed by the oblivious and occasionally well-meaning... i just love the way you poured it all out, and got to the bottom of your frustration, but in such an eloquent, articulate way.
though i have to disagree about chris crocker - i actually don't think everyone with a soapbox (or connection to the internet and youtube) should use it. crocker's videos are empty and not at all clever or intelligent.
but back to your praises - rich, i love your writing!
(and i'm interested to see if that editor did find a gay male (gale? wtf?) to write that article?...

[relan]

i have to say this. bravo for making me think. no one really does that anymore. we're all force-fed so much information these days, that it all gets so mind-numblingly tedious. there is nothing more exciting than to actually take a moment and really think about something, especially if it is something you thought you had contemplated before, but to realize that, wow. this is important and comlicated, but really worth my f*ing time.

love forever

[spazmo]

I love how this "editor" assumes that the entire thrust of a college-level course can be effortlessly reduced to a few breathless paragraphs of superficial sass. It's like she knows her readership will be all "Ha-ha...Humanities fags!"

Would the name of this distinguished publication rhyme with Baxim, by any chance?

[p]

Unrelated: did you know that Entertainment Weekly is linking to your Celine Dion YouTube video in print? In the Jan. 18th issue, on the "Must List" for the week. Page 61.

Come to think of it, you probs did know already.
Pretty terrific nonetheless.

[Reese]

I found this part of your post interesting...

"(Full disclosure: Bravo's frequent rewarding of gay minstrelsy, including giving Sledd his own reality show, had at least 50 percent to do with my disinterest in covering this season of Project Runway. Sorry, I no longer feel comfortable spending hours and hours a week supporting a network that, despite its pretensions, doesn't support my humanity. Any visibility is not good visibility.)"

What's funny is that this is exactly how many people feel about VH1 and "Flavor of Love" and "I Love NY." I'm not sure what your exact position is regarding a lot of the hate surrounding those shows, but I seem to remember you kind of thinking it was no big deal or something (correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyways, I'm not hating or being critical. I think it just shows that people who have been historically "disenfranchised" have more in common then they might think.

[DMC]

You know, I was just reading another blog--one of the all-too-common celebrity-watch blogs written by what could be a third-grader--and had an irresistible urge to come here and leave you a comment about how shocked I am by your wit, articulation and observations every time I come here. Who would have thought a blog largely dedicated to America's Next Top Model commentary would be one of the best-written on the Internet?

Today's entry is yet another example of that. I am so glad you were the "gay" chosen to receive that editor's query, and so glad you responded the way you did--including posting the e-mail and your thoughts on here. It's time for you to have a personal column in Out, The Advocate, or another gay magazine that would give you a greater platform. (I realize that statement is counterintuitive to today's entry, but it also has everything to do with it.)

I started crying when I read this. Which is gay, I know.

Thanks, Rich. I work in a very non-gay industry on Wall Street, and am often called upon to be the office mistrel. (She: "Do you like my boots?!" Me: Sigh. "They're FABulous.") I am lucky to have succeeded as I have, and it has nothing with where I put other men's body parts, and the one-note melody the media sings misses my experience completely. Your post hits it dead on. I am always gay, but I am not only gay.

Your boyfriend is one lucky man.

[kdub]

I don't know what it means to be gay, because at best I'm bi-curious, but I LOVE the word "gale".

[Steven]

Hear motherfucking hear.

[Vassar Boy]

So phenomenal. I saw the link on Perez Hilton too and sort of did a double take. I guess everyone's making fun of the class but the professor himself is a pretty famous in queer studies, we read his stuff pretty often in my classes. I know you can't define 'gay culture' but the older I get the more fun I have trying to figure out what it is, and what it is to me.

[Rae]

You should definitely forward this to David Halperin, I'm sure he would have a lot to say about the whole situation!

I hate gay and lesbian stereotypes, and I hate that they are both inside and outside the community. I hate the fact that to some extent, I avoid "my own community" because of the constant questioning I have to put up with. People assume that I can't be a lesbian because I'm girly, or that at the very least I must be bisexual. Oh, I'm sorry, should I go take off my high heels? Will people feel more comfortable if I go put on a baggy t-shirt and a baseball cap? (Ironically, the people who know me joke that I'm the biggest 6 on the Kinsey scale they've ever met.)

I'm proud of you for defending our rights to be whatever kind of gay people we want to be. I respect that you've kept the publication anonymous (and therefore shown them more courtesy than they afforded you), but I do hope you'll post a link if they ended up publishing an article by someone else.

[Michelle]

I just wish I were lucky enough to know you in person. Your writing is spot-on and heartfelt and I'm so happy you share your very articulate voice.

[Daniel]

That was really really good.

[Daniel]

So was this comment by Shawn-Shawn:

As a gay man, I think that one issue that arises from this discussion is that so many gay men themselves have a really narrow definition of what it is to be gay that they frequently perpetuate stereotypes in order to feel "part of the culture," even if it's not representative of themselves.

YES!

I also found it really funny that you released this on the same day I was set to go see Kathy Griffin live. I love her, but that "my gays" thing just bugs my shit. I find it's often women, in trying to be so cool with it all, that are the most demeaning of all. At least outright homophobes are just plain wank. It's the so-called "allies," allies that really have no idea what you're really about, that are far more damaging.

[ammogirl]

You and your so-very-well strung-together sentences make me so proud to believe in what I believe in. I love it when you write articles like this!

I'm not all starry-eyed and "I hope one day, people's sexuality won't even be an issue", but, um, one day, I hope people and their choice of sexuality won't even be an issue.

[yggy]

Thank you, Rich, and everyone who has shared their personal experiences in the comments.

[claire]

Dear Rich,
This is the kind of "front of the book" stuff that editors just want written in an interesting voice, in this case yours. I used to work for weekly magazines, and I did it all the time. I edited technology stories, so if there was a new computer game out I might call someone who was interested in that type of game and ask him or her to write me something fast.

I'm glad you turned this down (it's beneath your talents), but I hope you don't reject these quickie assignments automatically in the future, because these kinds of bylines are what is going to make you known beyond the blogosphere -- leading to assignments for long-form journalism, which is where your true success will come.
That is all. Thanks.

[sean]

There's a lot to be said for "The Queer Status Quo" - the drugs are amazing.

[Ramou]

The line about the high heels was fantastic!

I am very proud of you.

An amazing piece Rich; I come for pop culture, I stay because of entries like this.

[Elizabeth]

I couldn't even imagine calling my male gay friends "my gays." It's equally humorous to think of them calling me "their straight"...

Wonderful post. :)

[betch]

this is why you're awesome.

[Keisha]

Rich, I love you. I can't even articulate why, but I do.

Articles like this are the reason I love the internet. Thoughtful, insightful discussion after the love of New Jack Swing and before some sort of (impending) Winston post.

I'm sure this same lady had the fantastic idea of writing a "what it takes to be black" article too.

[Fantastique]

Oh Rich, you are so awesome!

[Mark]

I stumbled upon this, but I want to say: THANK YOU.

You've said everything I've thought and said to others over the years and its just great to find out I'm not some kind of 8-headed freak for thinking this way (re: "my gays," William Sledd and being true to you). You are a truly fantastic writer, and I can't wait to read more by you.

[Amber]

Rich - These sentences you wrote just stopped me cold:

"If you're distilling your very being down to just sexuality, you're dehumanizing yourself before anyone truly hateful can get to you. It's a defense mechanism, maybe, but it's so so harmful."

If everyone (including myself) could really understand that concept, many self-esteem problems would be vastly diminished.

I just got a lesson today on how to be a better person from a great writer. Thanks.

[Gally]

It's essays like this one that make me love your blog.

You're the perfect example of a blogger who has a brain and a sense of humour. Thank you.

[friendofdorothy]

That is an awesome response! I hope that editor reads this and learns something from the whole experience.

[Julia]

Rich, your intelligence and wit always jumps right off the screen, even in your silliest and most pop-culture-saturated posts. But to see those wonderful traits coupled with such sophisticated sensitivity and a keen eye for cultural justice brings a tear to my eye.

[lolainchesaway]

Rich,

I have always found your recaps of ANTM and other posts hilariously brilliant. I always come back because you are a funny mo'fo. After reading this post I have so much respect for you not just as a gay man but as a man period. Thank you for posting this up.

[enough]

I find it ironic that you found the editor's request insulting and that it prompted you to write this off-putting rant.

I find it ironic particularly because you happily play the role of "the gay" here on your blog. You present yourself as the kind of guy who would be one of Kathy Griffin's "gays". You are the gay best friend that makes bitchy comments about ANTM contestants and Tyra Banks, Celine Dion, Beyonce, and your goddam cat. One of the gayest sites ever.

This is the public image you put forth- and then you somehow are offended that someone seek to PAY you to do exactly what it is that people come to this site for (because I highly doubt that people really come to the site to read your insightful views on socio-political issues).

Take the job or reject the job and shut up- an angry rant does not change the fact that you write vapid dribble on mindless subjects on the internet- own up to what you are and stop with the holy-rolling.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for providing such wonderful insights to your intelligent ideas, and bundles of entertainment alongside.

Have a great new year!

[kate]

whether it's an ANTM recap, a media review, or an essay like this one, there is always something thoughtful and socially conscious about your posts. anyone who reads (and respects and enjoys) this blog like i do knows that. so, thanks! and keep at it.

I don't even remember how I found this blog. I 'm just so, so glad I did. Thanks.

Have you ever thought of compiling all of your more philosophical posts into a book? Seriously... I want you to become a household name, so that as many people as possible would be familiar with the way you conceptualize even the toughest of.. well, concepts. Especially the people who would not visit your blog in the first place due to their own ignorance. I picture collective ignorance sloping down if that were to happen, heh.

And alongside it, you could publish a book with all your lighter (but no less genious) material.

[Charlotte]

Extremely well put, I think I'm in love with your articulate ass, Rich. :)

Seriously, I completely agree with everything you said. If only more people saw it this way.

[scubaotter]

Good editorial, Rich.

This 'controversy' was covered in The Advocate on 9/30/2003 by contributor Jay Blotcher. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_Sept_30/ai_110917215

In short, Gary Glenn and friends are attempting to resssurect sturm and drang over a pathetically failed "cause" based on false propaganda and an unwillingness to assimilate facts into their assertions, or engage in rational debate.

As other UM students/alums who've posted previously have stated, Professor Halperin has stellar credentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Halperin and http://www.lsa.umich.edu/english/faculty/fibDetail.asp?ID=254).

[Traci]

You have a great gift, Rich. Thank you for sharing it.

[Autism News Beat]

I'm a 52 yr old, married, straight white guy who is sickened by homophobia and the religious justification offered for hating gays. But to be perfectly honest, I still feel some discomfort with "gayness". But I felt some of that discomfort slip away after reading your comment. I especially liked the part of seeing a gay person for his humanity rather than for his sexuality. It's so simple, and was right in front of me the whole time. It just took a really good writer to make me see it. Thanks.

[Kenna]

Rich,
After reading what you've written here, I'm afraid my days visiting fourfour and feeling like it's my coveted little secret are numbered. You are too good for your/our own good. Integrity is a rare thing and it's evident from all the comments people still appreciate it. I bet the person who sent you the email had integrity at some point in their life. I bet she lost hers when faced with an offer similiar to what she offered you. How sad is it that she's so far gone, that such an offer would just roll off her keyboard so easily. There really are some sad, fucked up people in high places. Makes me appreciate you that much more. Please, thank her for me.

[jon]

I'm a gay male, out, proud, & very liberal, a graduate student in the humanities, but have decided not to make my own identity into my academic one. That said, I think that a course like this one is exactly the sort of discourse that those of us who share some sort of gay identity (however loosely defined, however inclusive) to gain some sort of insight into not only our purported tastes and concerns (camp, musicals, etc; equal rights, homophobia, heterocentricism, etc) but more importantly the codes of behavior that actually must be learned--a semiotics of homosexuality is a very rich topic, and is at play in your post as much as in the editor's email. You disavow being boxed into a solidified identity (as do lots of those who left comments, as do I), she wants to box it up into 800 words with the prerequisite Carson Kressley drop quote. I too disdain the sort of "I'm friends with the gays" Kathy Griffin sentiment and have a tendency to gravitate towards those who view (my) sexuality as a non-issue as opposed to a reason to like me--no, I don't enjoy feeling like a one-man, well-dressed, well-coiffed minstrel show, always prepared with a flippant quip--but that construction of identity and various means of its disavowal are obviously issues for those of us who know any out gay men, any closeted gay men... really anyone who falls into an alternative male subjectivity. And this deserves to be explored in terms of how these identities are formed and how they interact. I tried to convey this to my parents, who are socially accepting in the tolerant sense of the phrase. They love me, don't care that I'm gay, just want me to be happy. But they also don't understand how I could find Queer Eye or Will & Grace mildly offensive. My point is this: I think the course may offer a very helpful way to to explore the codes of behavior and modes of self-presentation that any gay man has to deal with, by the fact of our experience of bigotry, either in brutal or veiled forms. Just some thoughts.

[frigg]

Andrew Sullivan reads fourfour?!

Welcome to the big leagues.

link

[Michelle]

from "enough":
(because I highly doubt that people really come to the site to read your insightful views on socio-political issues).

You're unfortunately dead fucking wrong on that point and many others in your comment.

It's painfully obvious that you'll never get the point that Rich was eloquently making, and that is sadly your loss.

If I were not a lady. I would tell you exactly where to go. Might I suggest instead you frequent another blog and spare us your vitriol.

[fanmail]

i hope when you do write that great popculture criticism book you surely will be writing/are writing as we speak, that a version of this is a huge part of your introduction. well don; right on.

[Molly]

Well done! A great decision followed by an incredible explanation. They should print that in their publication...it would be much more insightful.

[Vanessa]

(I just wrote this whole thing about much I value your commentary on ANTM, conjoined twins, Fred Phelps, Bret Michaels and pretty much anything else that crosses your mind but shit, like 100 other people beat me to it.)

I did want to say that while I can see while some may find Queer Eye, Will & Grace offensive, etc. I do think they serve a valuable purpose. For many people, this is their first exposure to homosexuals; as far as they know anyways. If they can see them on the TV and like them, attitudes can change. While not all gay men are Carson or Will, I'd like to think/hope they will make life better for all gay men. And women.

[Tallsonofagun]

Strange, but I really like being a "gay accessory". I guess it´s my own experience though. No one ever knows I´m gay or assumes it to be possible until I out myself to them. I don´t fit any of the stereotypes that people tend to have and so I get a little thrill when someone wants to use me in that way. Sure, I wouldn´t have much tolerance for it if it were a constant thing, but it´s a fun diversion for me when I get to play up that side of my personality.

That being said, you are right on in your assessment of her e-mail and your article´s thoughful ruminations are exactly the kind of things that should be part of the curriculm of "How To Be Gay". Without a doubt, you are one of the most insightful and interesting people I´ve ever read that also happens to be gay.

[Joan]

How ironic that in refusing to do the requested puff piece, you subsequently wrote the best dissertation on the subject matter ever.

Bravo (no, not them) to you!

[Joanie]

WHERE ARE THE PROJECT RUNWAY RECAPS?

Nice man, nice. I have to say that I've fallen into that category with some of my friends of being that caricature of a gay male with some of my friends. Just at brunch today I was the one who made the most gay jokes. At first I thought I would do it to ease any tension people might have about having me around. I'm from the South and there weren't too many folks cool with the concept of me being gay. So I used comedy as a defense mechanism, as you pointed out in yo