As most of you are probably aware of, New York Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino is extremely homophobic as he hates the concepts of same-sex marriage and gay pride. He has gone on the record by saying,"I don’t want [my kids] brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and acceptable option- it isn't." I find this statement to be extremely intolerant and ignorant on the Tea Party supported candidate and I would be damned if he were elected governor. Yet, Paladino made comments about his opponent Andrew Cuomo appearing at a gay pride with his kids, an act he called "disgusting."While I am disturbed by most of Paladino's beliefs I agree with his questioning of the morality of gay pride parades.
You see, after seeing a baseball game, I went to a Gay Pride Parade with my cousin in San Francisco in the summer of 2009. I was appalled by what was demonstrated in the parade. This pride parade, among others, was nothing more than a campy, flamboyant, hypersexual, and sexist display of lewd conduct. It is completely non-representative of gays and lesbians because it continues to display the perception that they are hypersexual, flamboyant or effeminate human beings. It is also sexist in that it portrays a stereotypical satirical image of women. So in some ways, these Gay Pride parades poison youth's perceptions of gays and this can lead to homophobia. This is why there is a significant amount of gays who oppose these parades.
If I were a parent I would not want my children to witness people publicly committing sexual acts with each other, heterosexual or homosexual. So, in some ways I agree with Paladino in that Andrew Cuomo bringing his kids to an inappropriate demonstration is irresponsible. Yet, I differ from Paladino in that I have another reason; I would not want my children to develop stereotypes LGBT persons as immoral or flamboyant people.
Now, there are plenty of pride parades that are not sexualized and follow a code of conduct. I would willingly attend and support those types of parades. However, the largest parades, the same kind that get the most media exposure, are the ones that perpetuate the perceptions of gays in a misrepresentative way. The government should censor these hypersexualized and sexist acts from being displayed to the youth, who could associate those characteristics with all gays and thus lead to homophobia.
It's a pretty complicated issue. Not ALL gay pride parades are lewd, lascivious affairs. The Christopher Street West parade is pretty tame.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people engaging in sex acts, heterosexual or homosexual, is not something I want young kids exposed to.
But I strongly disagree that the government should be involved in censoring gay pride parades.
It should also be noted that it shouldn't be surprising that a minority group who has had their sexual expression stifled and denigrated by both cultural and government forces might act out at an annual celebration of their "liberation" and freedom.
I'm also not inclined to agree. I have attended a gay pride parade in the past, in Portland OR, and I have seen firsthand that yes, there are pretty lascivious sexual acts depicted publicly. But honestly, for the most part, it's nothing you couldn't see on television and in media between heterosexual individuals, and I don't see how that means gays and lesbians should not also have the right to that sort of public expression. I mean, one of the floats in the Portland parade was for the city's only strip clubs (and the only ones of their kind I've ever heard of) that were specifically designed for gay men and lesbians - a female strip club for females and a male club for males. And believe me, the staff members on the floats were not being shy about displaying their occupation and quite a lot else. But in the same parade were the more respectable faces of the GLBT community - political candidates, welcoming churches, a gay baseball league (which is who I was marching with.) Can't there be a balance between both the showing of pride stereotypically and the showing of homosexuals as everyday citizens?
ReplyDeleteAs for bringing children to the parade... I object as much as you do, but frankly, it's the parents' job to not take their children, not the government's job to censor the parades from a general public with more adult sensibilities. (Bear in mind I have VERY strong anti-censorship feelings, so if you want to get in a debate with me about it, I welcome it... but I might end up on a soapbox.)
@Hanna White
ReplyDeleteBalance? There are many gays who want to exhibit their pride, but do not want to be connected to stereotypes. Let us compare black pride with gay pride. Black people did not show their pride through minstrel shows or "thuggery." They were simply themselves and any black person that exhibited those stereotypes simply were kept out of view. Many gays feel that the flamboyant and oversexualized pride parades is misrepresentative of their identity. So my question is why would the LGBT community want to represent the stereotypes they are fighting against?
I am a huge supporter of censorship because certain things need to be kept out of the public view for morality reasons; overtly sexualized acts are one of them, heterosexual or homosexual. No one wants to see another Super Bowl XXXVVII Halftime incident on television and no one wants to see public displays of sex. Now, I am inclined to agree with you and Professor Buckmire in that their are issues involving government censorship because it conflicts with freedom of speech (which I think needs heavier limitations on although that's a different debate). So really, the organizers in the parade need to be more wary of what is presented in public and they hold themselves accountable for presenting what is deemed socially unacceptable in public.
@DavidPino, I think we'll have a very interesting discussion about this in class when we get to the "law" section of the class.
ReplyDeleteI would just say, "be careful what you wish for" regarding supporting governement censorship for morality purposes. The reason why the 1st Amendment bars the government from content discrimination (barring the publication of content i disagrees with) is because the question is always "whose morality" does everyone need to live by? I have absolutely no problem with Janet Jackson's nipple being flashed at a Superbowl Half-time game for .5 seconds. There are other people who think it is a horrible thing. I have no problem with seeing a married gay male couple kiss on television; there are people who think that is pornography.
By giving the government the right to censor what is considered immoral speech you put a lot of unpopular and/or subaltern individuals right to expression at risk.
@DavidPino, pretty much what Professor Buckmire said explains my views on censorship (what is deemed 'socially acceptable' is too variable to legislate), so I'll go to the other point.
ReplyDeleteThe place where I object to your suggestion that flamboyant gayness should be kept out of gay pride can sort of be seen in your comparison to racist images of blackness. You said that black people 'were simply themselves.' And the thing is, there's a substantial portion of gay people who, when acting flamboyantly, are just being themselves. It wasn't so long ago that the only way gay people could find to express their pride was flamboyancy. That tendency, and that necessity, hasn't faded yet. Years from now, I think, if the community becomes more accepting at large, it might fade away, but as of now it's still a very important part of many gay's lives. Also, in my opinion, if you consider flamboyancy to be the tendency of a gay man to act with a feminine gender expression, that might just be his natural inclination in the first place, as I think gender expression is partly learned but partly an inborn characteristic. I know I don't feel comfortable acting with a masculine gender expression, and I doubt you'd feel comfortable acting with a feminine one, and I don't believe that's entirely because of what society's taught us. I understand your objections, and the objections of more moderate gay people, to the continuation of the stereotype, but I don't think it should just be gotten rid of when for many it's part of a lifestyle.
@DavidPino
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing that government responsibility is a greater force and preferable to personal responsibility? Because that sounds like an iffy argument to me. On what grounds is the government-- from local to federal-- responsible for what public events you personally choose to attend? Why is that something you would want legislated? Like it or not, lascivious acts can be found pretty much anywhere, and life would be a lot better if people chose more carefully where to go and when.
If I don't want to see people grinding, I don't go to clubs or Oxy dances (haha). Now, nobody told me specifically that there would be grinding, but it only takes a little common sense to figure it out. If I like grinding, then I go. If I don't, I don't. It's that simple. Why should everyone else be denied based on my dance preferences? It makes no sense. A repressed people, like the LGBT community, should be able to be proud in whatever manner they like, so long as they don't infringe on your freedoms. And guess what? It doesn't. We can all choose to walk on another street.
On another point... if you go to a football game, you will not necessarily get a good idea of what all athletes are like or think. If you see "RENT", you are not necessarily well-versed in Shakespeare. If you listen to rap, you are not necessarily a fan of Classical Klezmer stylings. And yet athletes, thespians, and music-lovers are all a classification of people, just as LGBT is. Don't assume that other members of the community, whether or not they like being in a pride parade, aren't just as proud that that parade is happening.