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.blogspot.com]

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.