Gay 2.0: An Introduction

I alluded to this at the end of the last post, but I'm endlessly fascinated by the concept of Gay 2.0. (Bear with me as I over-generalize to an absurd degree, because I do have a point and I can't qualify every assertion.)

Gay culture is changing. Some would say gay culture is deteriorating. LGBT people are now accepted by more elements of society than ever before. The trends are unmistakable: gay marriage will become the law of the land for most people, if not all, within the next ten to twenty years. Younger LGBT are consequently becoming complacent in the movement for equal rights. Younger LGBT are also less inclined to seek out a specifically "gay" restaurant, bar, clothing store, movie, group of friends, etc. As LGBT people are more accepted by elements of non-gay society (for lack of a better term), generally speaking, the younger generations don't feel the need to focus on their sexual orientation in order to establish an independent adult identity.

This is--benefits minus costs--unquestionably a good thing. So much of the gay culture of the older generations (call it Gay 1.0) is built on a foundation of fear, persecution, ostracization, and prejudice. That is the society in which 1.0 culture developed. But as society changes, so too does gay culture change. However happy members of the LGBT community are with the massive progress the movement has made recently, that happiness has to be tempered by recognizing that our victories may inevitably lead to the end of "gay culture."

The ease with which a person accepts this change defines the "iteration" of that person's culture. If you are completely at ease with the declination of gay culture as such--because you don't think gay culture in and of itself is a necessary thing--you embody a Gay 2.0 culture. On the other hand, if you perceive that the victories are bittersweet, knowing that one more step ahead toward equality under the law is also one more undermining of the very necessity for gay culture--which you think is a bad thing--your mindset is representative of Gay 1.0.

Obviously, as a general matter the older gay generation tends to be 1.0, and the younger gay generation tends to be 2.0. I came out in 1998 at age 18. I would have to say that I categorize myself more 1.0 than 2.0, but I think I'm on the knife's edge of the categorizations. Most older LGBT people I know I would categorize as 1.0, whereas most of the younger LGBT I know I would say are 2.0. That isn't to say a 29 year old today is the fulcrum of the distinction; the response of friends and families as well as the environment in which a person grows up makes an enormous amount of difference. But that, anecdotally, is where I see a gray line.

I am absolutely not saying that I think this issue is black and white. To use my characterization, there are Gay 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 people, etc., on down the line. In the future I would like to explore specific areas where this cultural change will likely make a difference. But the undisputed truth is this: gay culture as it is formerly understood is being diminished by the very successes for which the entire culture was established. Where is it going to go next--if anywhere?

Three Things

1. Can something be done about David Ortiz? Like, is there some reason we need to keep him in the line up? Send him to AAA for awhile and stick someone who can hit in there. This is getting to be ridiculous. I also have issues with Nick Green at shortstop. Okay, so he's a pretty decent hitter with runners on base, and of course he's adorable, but he makes fielding and/or baserunning errors every time I watch him play. Maybe it's really my fault: bad luck charm. Hopefully Jed Lowrie will be back soon. He looks like my former roommate's former boyfriend.

2. I saw the craziest movie last night, Happy-Go-Lucky. First of all, I love British movies, especially featuring cockney accents. You could barely understand what these people were saying but it was still hilarious. I actually tried to put subtitles on so I could follow better, but I couldn't figure out how to on my fabulous new tv.

The movie itself was about a woman who is... happy go lucky. I'm sure there is more to it, and I could come up with some random take on the movie, but (a) I don't feel like thinking that hard; and (b) I fell asleep for twenty minutes in the middle of it, so I probably missed some crucial plot twist. Sally Hawkins plays the lead though, and she was so great. Actually, I just clicked over to the movie's website to find some linky material and I see she got the Golden Globe for her role last year. Good for her. She probably deserved it, but I don't remember who she was up against.

3. I'm sitting here right now with Golden Girls on in the background, and it's funny to realize that GG is an older generation's Sex and the City. Four fabulous women talking about their single sex lives, always getting in each others' business, riffing off of each others' personalities. I mean, that description could apply to all kinds of sitcoms, but it was one of those shows that really resonated with the gays. Bea Arthur of course made Golden Girls. I personally loved Cynthia Nixon in SATC. Strong female roles of course. Also, it turns out that GG is sometimes the current generation's SATC. It will live on in infamy.

There could be a Gay 1.0 v. Gay 2.0 point to be made there, and maybe someday I will.

Ugh.

Presenting a verbatim conversation between me and my boyfriend Tuesday night:

JZ: I think I’m going to go by James instead of Jimmy from now on.
CW: Why? There’s nothing wrong with Jimmy. It’s cute.
JZ: CEO’s aren’t named Jimmy. It’s a kid’s name. [NB: He wants to be a CEO of SOMETHING sometime.]
CW: What about Jimmy Carter? He was president.
JZ: Yeah but only one term.

I Love it

The opening lines of this article made me laugh out loud:

The ladies in the card room are playing bridge, and at their age the game is no hobby. It is a way of life, a daily comfort and challenge, the last communal campfire before all goes dark. “We play for blood,” says Ruth Cummins, 92, before taking a sip of Red Bull at a recent game.

No word yet on whether she found a bridge app for her iPhone.

Yes, I am a True New Englander

Based on these maps (linked by The Daily Dish via The Map Scroll):








Darker areas show higher correlation to the characteristic.

Accordingly, I am not extroverted, I am neurotic, I am not particularly agreeable, I might buck the trend regarding conscientiousness (I think I am --who doesn't --although certain people may take exception to that assertion) and I'm relatively open to experience. So I pretty much fit the bill.

And these maps also demonstrate how stereotypes are very often grounded in a bit of reality. Everyone thinks that New Englanders are stand-offish, neurotic and selfish. It looks like, generally speaking, they're kind of right.

Knowing v. Not Knowing

Interesting article via the NYT discussing that the possibility of something bad happening creates more anxiety than actually knowing something bad will happen.

Por ejemplo:

Consider an experiment by researchers at Maastricht University in the Netherlands who gave subjects a series of 20 electric shocks. Some subjects knew they would receive an intense shock on every trial. Others knew they would receive 17 mild shocks and 3 intense shocks, but they didn’t know on which of the 20 trials the intense shocks would come. The results showed that subjects who thought there was a small chance of receiving an intense shock were more afraid — they sweated more profusely, their hearts beat faster — than subjects who knew for sure that they’d receive an intense shock.

Why are humans so weird?

Waxing Rhapsodic

about American Idol is Jacob from Television Without Pity:

Think about this: more than the Superbowl, more than any Presidential address, more than anything Neilsen can currently monitor: whenever this show comes on, we watch it together. Singly or in huge parties, this show is the biggest thing that happens, every episode, all week, all year. Queers and queer families, moms with daughters, families of all ridiculous building blocks, daddies with secret singer hearts and quiet tears down the cheek. We gather, here at TWoP or in our homes, live or on DVR or by ahem means, and we do this thing. This pointless, silly, wonderful thing: we do it together.

I love the recaps on this site, esp. with American Idol and, previously, with the Apprentice. So funny and sometimes really insightful.

And I still maintain my neutrality about the result. Kris = cute and marketable. Adam = flamboyant superboy with a limitless career ahead of him. A pretty good mix if you ask me.

Shelly O

She is amazing. The Time article is really interesting too.

SCOTUS Wager

In re Obama's Supreme Court pick:

I started off thinking it would be Kagan.

Then I thought it would be Sotomayor.

Now I think it's gonna be Wood.

My final answer: Ten bucks on Wood. Any takers?

Obama is a Good Politician

Ergo, he is not a brave politician.

Thus far, I have been mostly happy with President Obama's administration. He has to be happy with his progress as well. He appears to have a long term strategy to put his agenda through Congress. He has yet to suffer a major legislative defeat. (Congress's refusal to appropriate funds to close Guantanamo was, as Ann Althouse has repeatedly argued, probably engineered by the administration as a way out of a hastily issued order). His stimulus bill passed early this year, and health care reform will come up for a vote by this fall. Early indications are that Republicans will not engage in a death match over Obama's soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court nominee.

So, Obama has those things going for him.

Where I have problems with Obama is that he is afraid to lead through bold and aggressive action. To take just one example in the national security arena, the reason the Democrats in Congress had to give him cover on backing out of the deadline to close Guantanamo Bay is because the right is kicking and screaming about having terrorists on American soil. The right argues that terrorists shouldn't be in United States prisons--exactly why this is a problem I don't quite understand--and some on the left are beginning to make the same point. Why Obama chooses not to counter the shrieking is beyond me. The right wing in this country has been decisively rejected in the past two elections, including in 2008 when they tried to portray Obama as a terrorist sympathizer. Obama, you will recall, won 365 electoral votes in that election. But he apparently still fears that portrayal. Thus, Guantanamo Bay will stay open until he can find a way to dial down the rhetoric. (Hint: The rhetoric isn't going anywhere).

Glenn Greenwald blogs extensively regarding Obama's Bush-era national security policies, much much more so than I feel like getting into right now. Head on over and start scrolling. It's really rather depressing.

For me, though, the biggest problem I have with Obama's political "skill" is his unwillingness to stand up for the rights of gay and lesbian Americans. Obama refuses to push to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and he refuses to comment on the gay marriage revolution 2009 is turning out to be.

You might have heard that Obama's defense department recently fired Dan Choi, an Arab linguist, because he publicly revealed his sexual orientation. Obama, rather than making it a point to get Congress to repeal the legislation -- or, gasp, issue an executive order effectively doing the same thing -- has decided to wait until some point in the unforeseeable future to make his move (if, indeed, he actually will be making a move). Marc Ambinder describes the likely course of action:

Obama will probably convene a commission -- not sure yet whether it'll be a blue ribbon dealy or a smaller task force -- that will, under the guise of studying the "problem," be tasked with coming up with ways to meaningfully and safely integrate open homosexuality with military service. No mistake here: the administration will not give this commission the option to decide that being gay is not compatible with service. But the idea is to build a consensus through all available means -- legally, through the courts, in public, through a concerted but non-hectoring public relations effort, in the military, by conveying the sense that Obama takes the objections to his view seriously -- and then, when such a consensus has arisen, work with Congress to change the policy.

This is a cowardly way to advocate for minority rights. This fact is particularly true when polls show that overturning the ban on gay and lesbians in the armed services isn't particularly controversial anymore. 56% of the country favor an outright repeal of the ban, and 7% are unsure.

Similarly, Obama refuses to acknowledge gay marriage victories this year in Iowa, Maine, Vermont and -- soon -- New Hampshire, let alone push for a greater acceptance of gay marriage. This to me is a less annoying political position to take since majorities still regularly poll in opposition to gay marriage (although the number of those in favor of gay marriage has soared in recent years, and has risen dramatically in 2009 alone).

But less annoying does not mean not annoying. Presidents are elected to lead. I understand that Obama has more than enough on his plate at this point in his administration. As he lectured John McCain during the presidential campaign, though, presidents must be able to do more than one thing at one time. If President Obama chose to come out in favor of gay marriage now, when he has enhanced political capital and maintains solid approval ratings (65% in today's Gallup tracking poll), he could put his imprimatur on the defining civil rights struggle of the 21st century. Obama could link his name to the success of the gay rights movement the way Martin Luther King or Lyndon Johnson are linked to the success of the African-American civil rights movement in the 1960's. In short, this is a history-making opportunity that Obama refuses to embrace.

I understand that Obama wishes to conserve his political capital for health care and the myriad other programs that he wishes to institute in this country. I think he also overestimates the potential negative impact his support for full equality would have. That said, the potential downside of taking action is probably higher than the potential downside of not taking action. As the title of this post indicates, Obama's unwillingness to take that extra step, to show the country that one can simultaneously respect religious autonomy yet still be an advocate for all people to be treated equally under the law, is the (marginally) safer choice. Refusing to take action probably makes him a good politician. But it sure doesn't make him brave.

Gay Prom

So last night, after a significant amount of cajoling by my roommate, I volunteered to chaperone BAGLY's gay youth prom. Although there is a lot to say about the experience, the thing that really stuck with me was how mainstream gay kids are now. There were what people would call stereotypical gay kids, but the gay community ran the panoply: skaters, jocks, normal little girl lesbians, etc.

It was a really remarkable demonstration of how "gay" seems to be losing much of its idiosyncracy in the younger generation.

G Weds

Gay marriage throughout New England is looking like a definite possibility by 2012. We have VT, MA, CT and ME so far. NH is coming up (possibly tomorrow). RI later on. I like it.

Even though I wouldn't EVER do it, as I told the New York Times :)

86 Specter

If Arlen Specter, the new Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, is still rooting for Norm Coleman to win the Minnesota senate recount over Al Franken, why exactly should Democrats be happy he's in the Democratic caucus? I definitely loved watching the Republicans flip their collective lid last week, but this isn't acceptable. Especially considering the way he framed it: he wants the courts to "do justice" and seat the loser of the election.

Someone needs to primary his ace.

Secular Conservatives?

I'm sure there are more of these types of people out in the woodwork somewhere, but it's nice to finally see conservatives articulate their views without reference to what they think god would have wanted. The Secular Right blog represents the kind of approach that conservatives need to take if they ever hope to win back a governing coalition.

I could conceivably be receptive to a certain kind of conservative message, one that emphasized more responsible spending (in a long term sense, which means it's OKAY to spend big now on things like universal health care in order to reap long term benefits - and savings) and had a libertarian philosophy w/r/t tired culture war issues. But it seems like the time such a message could even substantially participate in the discussion, let alone predominate it, is very far off. That's why (a) the 2012 Republican primary is going to be worth every tub of popcorn I can get my hands on, and (b) I will be a Democrat for at least the short-to-medium term future.

More on this later.

Seriously

I'm trying to think of some act of journalism that could possibly be more boring than this one, but I simply can't.

With the Times about thisclose to going bankrupt I'm glad this sort of thing warrants the pixels.

Maybe next an analysis of comma type-face fads?

Speaking of the Times and bankruptcy, I really hope the Times Co. doesn't shut down the Boston Globe. Granted, I don't actually READ the Boston Globe all that often (or ever), but it feels like too much of an institution. And I love looking at the headlines whenever a Boston sports team wins a playoff series or something. This city is intense about their sports . . . like Pittsburgh is with their STEELERS. But I digress. Save the Globe.

An Internet Revolution

What could this mean for Google's hegemony?

Rachel Getting Married -- in Real Time

A few random things about Rachel Getting Married, which my bf insisted we watch last night (or was I the insister? I don't remember and it couldn't possibly matter anyway):

1. I am a big fan of film-- particularly acting and writing. I love a great screenplay and a revolutionary acting performance. And I had heard such good things about Anne Hathaway's performance. After tolerating her in Devil Wears Prada (the movie of the new millennium) I was excited to see her in something more challenging and less cutesy.

2. Call me a snob, but when Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics gives a movie a 94% rating, I'm going to expect it to be good.

3. I did, in fact, expect RGM to be good.

Now.

4. The film started off well enough. Anne Hathaway is a recovering drug addict-slash-other things on her way home from rehab to go to her yuppie sister's wedding. There was plot point about a clandestine lesbian relationship that could rear its head at some point (although I would later find that it went nowhere). And there was a "car ride home" scene with that hand held camera/gritty realism thing that I like so much. So far so good.

5. But this movie drug on forever. Scenes stretched to an interminable length. I didn't need to see forty minutes of lame speeches at the rehearsal dinner leading up to the sublimely uncomfortable speech that Hathaway gives. (It's really fantastic). This aspect of RGM reminded me of the film Day Night Day Night, which was about a girl who was going to be a suicide bomber in NYC. Every scene stretched out forever, and while it drove me crazy -- all tension, no release -- at least it made sense. The girl was going to kill herself and dozens of people in a flash of fire. Everything she did that day was "important." Not so with RGM. The film could have been thirty minutes shorter, or we could have added a lot of character development, like with the mother. (Hello?)

6. Anne Hathaway really is an amazing actress. I thought she was great in Brokeback, so-so in Prada, and I refuse to sit through the entirety of the Princess Diaries. I'm sure there are other things but I dont know them. But this is far and away her best performance that I've seen. She's got that intensely smart/99% crazy vibe that's really compelling to watch. And let me cite the rehearsal dinner speech again, as well as her support group confession. Wow.

7. There is a lot to say for RGM, such as how natural it seemed, definitely a testament to the great ensemble cast. But honestly, I was mostly bored. There is some good stuff in here, but you have to work too hard to find it.

8. I want a burrito.

Just Because

It's probably been awhile:

Blog 2.0

I blogged a year ago at onfurtherreview.blogspot.com, but the bar exam sucked all the life out of it :(

Here's to a new cyber baby!

Questions: "Swine" Flu

1. Can we get a little perspective re: this new swine flu? The regular flu kills 36,000 people per year, and I don't see the Texas school system being shut down over that. Nothing drives me crazier than hype.

2. If it were called H1N1 flu from the start, would there be such a ridiculous uproar? Or do we associate the word "pig" with "dirty" in such a way that anything associated with pigs makes us extra queasy?

3. As ridiculously over the top as the response has been, could it be a good thing? If there ever is a new plague that actually deserves attention, maybe going through the motions like we have been -- including, e.g., President Obama devoting his weekly address to it -- will better prepare us to deal when there is something actually to deal with.


If I were a superstitious person, I would say that this post would ensure that I will have H1N1 by tomorrow afternoon. And you know what? Even if I did, I would get over it. Go American health care system!