When Crying is Legitmate Discourse...
There was a letter to the editor in last Friday's Staten Island Advance (I will not reproduce it nor identify the author. If you want to see it, go find it) where the writer complained that he could not see "Brokeback Mountain" in any of the local theatres, and he wanted to know why this should be so. He identified himself as openly gay (he even mentioned his boyfriend's name and identified him as his signifigant other), and insinuated that there must be an anti-gay conspiracy to prevent the showing of this movie locally.
According to this man, the flim should be shown because it's "about love" and then he bolstered his case with a laundy list of nominations the film has garnered, critical acclaim and all the other sickening nonsense that is bestowed upon such a film by a closed culture that is both realistically detatched and inimical to that which the rest of us belong.
I wrote back. Which is unusual because I don't generally believe that anything i have to say will be reprinted (it makes too much sense, usually, I guess)and because I believe that my opinions (as strong as they are) are not considered good editorial fodder (i.e. they will not pass PC muster).
The first point I made in my response is that the theatres in question are not obligated to show anything they don't want to. They are also not obligated to show anything that could affect their business in a harmful way, i.e. showing a picture that offends the sensibilities of the general public. Why this is part and parcel of an anti-gay conspiracy is beyond me, but it was standard homosexual-rights boilerplate; when there is a legitimate reason why something isn't done, invent a conspiracy.
The next point was to instruct this poor man that we do not live in Soviet Russia. If the film is not available locally in theatres, it is being shown elsewhere. Particularly in Manhattan, and I would guess, New Jersey. No one is preventing the poor lad and his beloved from traveling to either location to see something they'd really like to. If that is inconvenient for Mr. and Mr. Whining Crybaby, that's not the paper's the theatre's or my problem. No need to complain about that.
Finally, in order to reassure (and I'll bet that would have failed anyway) the poor, deprived wretch, I made it clear that while I did not care that he was gay, nor interested in what he does in the privacy of his bedroom, I did object, strongly) to the attitude, which is prevalent amongst many militant gays, that I should care about all aspects of the gay agenda. Or even worse, that I simply have to care.
This is an example of that which I hate most about "identity politics"; the belief that all arguments and premises are valid simply because they originate with a member of an "aggrieved minority". Who defines "aggrieved minority", by the way? That funny little disclaimer at the end of most federal legislation that says regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation"? If that's the case, then why isn't the same standard applied in the other direction, away from the "aggrieved minority" where warranted?
This letter was simply yet another example of crying for profit. Perhaps the profit is not monetary, but having your viewpoint presented to the general poublic has a profit all of it's own. Attempting to force it upon the general public, by way of guilt, embarrassment, a twisted pathos or insuniation of sinister motivation, is simply not the way to go about it.
It amazes me that many members of the gay community (and the blacks, latinos, American Indians and parapalegic dwarf lesbians)still do not understand that when they attribute sinister conspiracies to that which can be reasonably explained they do more harm to their cause than good. It makes you look stupid, petty and whiny.