Is it religion that fosters this willful ignorance and compulsion to deny basic civil rights to other oppressed minorities?
Why is the black church so complicit in taking up the cudgel of discrimination when so many organists, choir leaders and assistant pastors are obviously gay? What accounts for this shameful lack of honesty and tolerance?
Certainly, the non-religious corners of African-American life are proudly and defiantly homophobic. It's another pathology this community has to come to grips with sooner or later.
Artful as always, Tony Norman attempts to elevate the furor around Isaiah Washington to a level of discourse that's actually relevant to homosexuals, particularly African-American gay men and lesbians (and bisexuals and transgender individuals). Rather than validate the absurd call for Washington's "Grey's Anatomy" character to turn gay, Norman dismisses Washington's acting impact, characterizing his role in the larger dynamic as simply another reinforcement of a stereotype that straight black men are homophobes.
Let's face it, though he's a competent enough actor, he's no Andre Braugher, Hugh Laurie or Forest Whitaker. You don't think "brilliant thespian" when Washington's name comes up. You think grumpy guy with a stethoscope.
Not only did Washington offend homosexuals by slurring T.R. Knight, he embarrassed straight, black folks like myself who aren't eager to deal with the stereotype that all black men are homophobes.
Turning Washington's character gay simply perpetuates the notion that being gay is a punishment, a curse to be born, an anathema to all straight men who aren't in touch with their femine side. Its a stupid suggestion made by small minded people who don't understand that playing a gay man on television has nothing in common with being gay. All the artificial swish in the world won't penetrate his thick skull unless he genuinely opens his mind. And, frankly, I don't care if he does. I'm much more concerned about the thick-skulled Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria's Anglican Church in terms of impact on the lives of gay people.
Tony's finger pointing at the faith communities within the African-American community is well-done and much-needed. But, to be fair, here in Pittsburgh there is also much needed work to be done on the part of the mainstream (aka white) gay community reaching out to include gay minorities.
Our great friend and all-around grooviest of the cool chics - Jennah - has gotten herself quote in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on a matter of great import to every one of us ... the proposed Port Authority transit cuts.
Jennah is one of the amazingest people in the world -- she takes no shit but does it with an infectious grin and disarming soft voice. She was my very first lesbian date, having the misfortune to meet me while I was in the midst of great longing for my very first lesbian love. In spite of my pathetic yearning, we became good friends and have shared many a cup of tea and spicy Asian dish over the years. Plus, she always notices when I get a little mention in the paper. Always notices. And always encourages me to keep speaking up, shouting out and screaming when necessary.
Jennah leaps to my mind when people moan and groan about getting involved as a volunteer or activist. She does both on a regular basis as well as juggling a full grad school course load and internships, plus all the usual family and personal commitments. She describes herself as "sparkly crippled disco babe" an evocative lyric that beautifully captures her essence.
So this is my shout out back to Jennah. I'm glad you made the time to attend the transit hearings and spoke with the press. The transit cuts may be necessary to keep the system afloat, but the necessity does not invalidate the deep pain and suffering they will cause and disproportionately so for the most vulnerable in our society.
The Correspondents are happy to report that the advice business over at the Post-Gazette has slowly improved. Fear not, they haven't kicked off the "Just Ask Reg" column much to the dismay of middle age white guys throughout the city. We understand that Mayor Opie had floated the idea of a nifty "Do What Dennis Says" daily column with a yet-unnamed author who could being along his very own typist/roommate for proofreading purposes.
No, we speak of our very own favorite advice maven -- Cat (Catherine) Specter author of Cat's Call (aka Just Ask Cat). Since getting kicked to the Tuesday edition, Specter left behind her hipster Yinzerette wanna be pose and focused on dishing out some actual interesting advice.
In the past, we've wagged our fingers at Ms. Specter's attempts to channel Carrie Bradshaw which just doesn't work in Pittsburgh. First of all, Carrie Bradshaw is a fictional character who wouldn't know what to make of his and her matching mullets. Second of all, she lived in New York, not New Castle. Finally, she had a bevy of writers to make her sound witty and the best berets money could buy.
The price Pittsburgh paid for Ms. Specter's kicky beret and you go girl attitude was, frankly, bad advice. In some cases, damaging advice. The all-time low was her recommendation to stay silent in the face of overt racism, a surprising suggestion given her association with decidedly anti-racist Tony Norman. For the most part, she just seemed more focused on permanently fusing women's self-empowerment with pleasuring men (backwards in high heels). If I want throwback, I can read Ruth Ann. Backwards in high heels.
But that was Sunday Cat. Now she seems to have wiped off the gloss, removed LaMont Jones' number from speed dial and filed down those talons to emerge into Tuesday Cat. She's interesting, warm and compassionate. She tells women in no uncertain terms to drop deadwood men and affirm themselves without invoking lip gloss, alcohol or, gasp, mascara.
She even printed a letter from a friend of mine and gave him the same advice as me! Minus the epithets.
Thus, I want to go on the record as endorsing Tuesday Cat over Sunday Cat. Since the Sunday PG may soon be a two page insert amidst the coupons and advertisements, that's probably not a bad move on her part.
Correspondent's Call: When she sticks with advice and forgoes the cutesy witticisms, she's not bad. She's no Reg Henry, but who among us is?
Now that Main Stream Media (MSM) has sunk its teeth into this little tale of a man and his handcuffs, the gay drama just escalates. This is like Queer Eye meets Cops.
WPXI airs previous interview where Ravenstahl plays word games to essentially deny being handcuffed. If he didn't actually lie about it, he omitted to tell the truth. Or did he?
The Post-Gazette runs a story from former Chief McNeilly calling for an investigation. To be fair, McNeilly is completely disengenuous when he claims no political motivation to speak out (his wife is Catherine McNeilly), but he's probably the only police-related person involved (or not) who has the ability to speak out. No cop who wants a future in this little metropolis that could is gonna speak out after the Mayor bitch slapped Catherine McNeilly into the warrant office, which I understand is the police equivalent to Siberia.
The the PG editorial board minces into the scene and bitch slaps (sorry for being repetitive) the Mayor's critics, especially ooohhhh ... the bloggers for engaging in rumor mongering. The High-Priestesses of Hissy have their feather boas in a furor because the facts don't support the accusations. I'd suggest the facts equally fail to support the defense. Not to mention the fact that we'll have a hard time getting the facts since the Mayor is the boss of everyone involved.
To sum up, we've got handcuffs, gagged cops, axes to grind, peeved members of the Main Stream Media, outraged husbands, silent sturdy types in uniforms, alcohol and a privileged frat boy with a pretty wife claiming that just because he wore the handcuffs doesn't mean he did the deed.
Earlier in the week, our beloved Post-Gazette took a half-hearted look at Pittsburgh's potential as a gay tourist destination (or not). Someone beyond your faithful correspondents noticed and took the time to share their perspective with the PG readership.
First, we have the "tolerant" homophobe who believes in live and let live as long as he doesn't have to see "leather-clad men groping each other." Mr. Scott Smith of Boulder, Colorado (yes, he moved away but, thankfully, continues to share his wisdom with us) thinks Pittsburgh has enough problems without adding homo-lure to its list. What is Mr. Smith's objection? It gives gays ... wait for it ..."special consideration." Which is bigot talk for chipping away at white-heterosexual-middle class-male privilege. GASP!
Mr. Smith sums up his own camouflaged homophobia in two sentences:
After all, being gay is just about how to have sex. It shouldn't be so all-encompassing as to define a person ... or involve a campaign to attract them.
I wonder if Mr. Smith thinks his hetero-masculinity defines his person? If he took the time to pick up the pen because some queens and a few dykes might roll into town to see the Andy Warhol museum and bring their tourist dollars with them, he's got some problems.
Mr. Smith wants us to stay in the closet and pass as breeders when we sally forth into the streets of Pittsburgh. I'm tempted to write "Fuck you, Mr. Smith" here but instead I'll just enjoy the fact that his delusion of a gay-sanitized Pittsburgh ain't never gonna happen.
Christopher Miller of Shadyside offers a gay man's perspective on several other key points we mentioned last week. The article was all about what the professionals think and very heavy on what professionals outside of Pittsburgh at that. No one asked Pittsburgh, straight or gay:
Your article does not address what Pittsburghers would think of our city becoming more gay-friendly. Has anyone asked them? Would they be comfortable with seeing two men holding hands walking down the street? Would our citizens be at ease with gays and lesbians being seen and heard? Would they welcome not only the GLBT dollars to help build the city's infrastructure, but also the love and pride that many members of the GLBT community have to share?
Mr. Miller points out that a lot of gay and lesbian families he knows move to the suburbs for peace and privacy. Thus, Pittsburgh has a lot of work to do in attracting homosexuals to live here much less vacation here.
While I agree that there is tremendous room for improvement with regard to local tolerance, I believe Mr. Miller is incorrect about moving to the suburbs. First, those who do so are deluding themselves. We have more civil right protections in the city than anywhere else in Western Pennsylvania. Any sense of heightened peace and privacy is entirely at the whim of your particular neighbors. I think there is a strand of the community that just wants to convince themselves that passing for a "normal" white middle class family is the goal of gay civil rights. Its a sad trap b/c it only ends up isolating them from the rest of their communities, gay and straight.
I also perceive that a lot of gays continue to live in the city. I live on the Northside and see family everywhere -- at the store, at the gas pumps, in the park, at the bank, everywhere. The issue is that we aren't connecting with each other.
And that ties back to Mr. Miller's issue -- is we aren't working on visibility and connections from within Pittsburgh's gay community, we are doomed. Most people are not comfortable with openly gay people unless them know one or two or a dozen. Why? Because our culture trains us to define heterosexuality as the norm. My opinion is that exposure is the only way to realistically chip away at that. Exposure through the arts, in the workplace, politics, Little League, faith communities, etc.
We need more people living proudly and out (albeit safely) rather than hiding away in some cul-de-sac in Mr. Smith's neighborhood being careful not to hold hands. Or grope leather clad men.
Per today's post at his Macyapper blog, it appears John is back in town and rarin' to go. Word on the street -- okay, in yesterday's Post-Gazette which is practically the same thing minus the labor tension and stale donuts -- is that John may soon pop up on a local FM talk station. Namely, KDKA's FM sister station 93.7 WRKZ.
Scott Paulsen will host a new talk show on WRKZ, starting in April. And John McIntire, whose nightly talk show on KDKA has been dropped, is in talks to move to the FM sister station.
Whoever is on the new FM talk lineup, McIntire says, "The handcuffs will be off. The restrictions one might feel on KDKA will be lifted. And that's a really exciting prospect."
Considering those handcuffs permitted him to repeatedly use the term "carpet muncher" in his bits satirizing the Bush/Cheney stance on homosexuality, it will be mighty interesting to see how far he can go on FM talk. Note: we don't object to satirical usage of seemingly offensive language to describe lesbians, especially when said satire is directed at our beloved leader.
The talking version of 93.7 is supposed to appeal to men it would seem between 25 and 50. Hmmm ....
I'm sorry. I can't stop thinking of it as B94 and remembering Quinn and Banana. Given Jim Quinn's litany of conservative hate spewing from the other end of the dial, its ironic that McIntire might fill his old slot. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Regardless, the lesbians say "Hurrah!" for the return of McIntire and his merry band.
ps: Ledcat swears she heard that John is supposed to guest DJ tomorrow on WYEP at 9 AM ....
The Post-Gazette's Big Kahuna himself , David Shribman, dedicated his weekly column to a subject near and dear to our hearts - public libraries. It seems some libraries are contemplating replacing underutilized classics with modern hot properties to conserve shelf space. Ick! Shribman correctly points out the damage this move can cause:
Some of the slow-moving books in the Fairfax library system remain of incalculable value to humankind and remain the foundation stones of our civilization.
The fact that no one has recently checked them out does mean no one should be able to do so.
I am a huge fan of the Carnegie Library. I visit my little branch in Woods Run (Brighton Heights) on a weekly basis. Thanks to the power of the network, I have access to a million titles without having to head into Oakland (another mighty fine but hard to access library). Right now my library tote bag contains a coffee table book written by U2, a few paperback mysteries, several movies (including Akeelah and the Bee), a novel by Margaret Atwood, and a book on contemporary etiquette dilemnas by Emily Posts's granddaughter. I pick stuff up like the last item when I browse around the new releases tables -- things I would never buy, but might like to read. Last week, I checked out the book on children's etiquette written by Whoopi Goldberg just because I wanted to see what it was like.
What I haven't been is attentive to are the classics I'm always claiming to want to read. While I doubt my modern tastes have been making a serious dent in the library circulation, Shribman's point is well-made. I last read Aristotle, Plato and Tolstoy in graduate school; Alice Walker, Thoreau and Willa Cather were even further back in my academic history. Perhaps its time to dust off my acquaintance with the books that made me think beyond the limits of my own experiences. What a lofty pledge!
Another excellent thing about the Carnegie Library - they provide us access to books that others might not want us to read. We have a great little book on our coffee table (under the 8 zillion magazines) title "And Tango Makes Three" that tells the true tale of two gay male penguins who are raising their own chick. It was a source of contention in school libraries that quivered at the hands of the mighty right wingnuts and their gay hostility. While school libraries debate censorship, the Carnegie Library has multiple copies at your disposal.
