ERiC jost BLOG

Taking the Pride Out of Mardi Gras

2011-11-21T20:58:00.000-05:00

Wow, was the last thing I published on here really in August?!? Yikes! OK, I've been slacking. Blame it on a mixture of laziness, busyness, and general uninspiredness (which has just become a word).

Perhaps my New Year's Resolution should be to write more; but don't hold me to it.

Today, my former home of Sydney, Australia announced that Sydney's world famous Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras would be dropping the "Gay & Lesbian" from its title, as well as the associated GLBTQI acronym. Chairman of Mardi Gras, Peter Urmson, stated that including the title "Gay & Lesbian" failed to recognize the shift towards acceptance of LGBTQI people that has occurred in recent years -- especially among young people. He hopes the new title will attract more heterosexual participants.

Sydney Mardi Gras has, admittedly, long been plagued by problems. The organization almost went bankrupt in 2003 before receiving financial aid from the AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON) and other supporters. Since then, it has repeatedly had difficulty maintain financial solvency; despite attracting nearly a million participants/viewers each year.

The decision to drop "Gay & Lesbian" and rebrand the entity is quite sad and seems a little misguided. It's as if San Francisco were to decide LGBTQ Pride would suddenly be called "Lovefest." Sure, everyone knows that it's a queer festival, but it would lose some of its significance.

The label "Gay & Lesbian" has preceded Sydney's Mardi Gras festival title for 30+ years, when it was originally organized as a LGBTQ rights march in the wake of the US' Stonewall. Even as the so called alphabet soup grew -- "B" for Bisexual, "T" for Transgender, "I" for Intersex, etc. -- the title stuck. So, really, the title of the march has never been truly reflective of the diverse queer community. As a result, I suppose you could make the argument that dropping it should thereby capture the previously missing letters.

However, Mr. Urmson misspeaks when he says that the younger generation is so accepting of their LGBTQ friends that there is no need for differentiation.

Perhaps I'm not up-to-date on my Australian LGBTQ politics, but I do believe neither of the major Australian political parties (Labor and Liberal) support gay marriage. I'm also pretty sure same-sex couples cannot adopt; nor can lesbian couples get IVF treatment. I also thought the hate crimes incidence rate was still fairly significant; as is the HIV infection rate. And Australia has a long-standing, sad tradition of discrimination in various forms.

If 2011 Sydney is that much different from the Sydney I moved away from in 2008, then this rebranding makes total sense. But I'm pretty sure it's not.

Renaming an LGBTQ event and calling it reflective of these "modern, accepting times" is a disservice to the community that has been bolstered by the annual tradition for over three decades. Without Sydney's Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, acceptance of LGBTQ people in Australia might have taken so much longer. Additionally, in the past, floats had to have some connection to the LGBTQ community -- will that no longer be a requirement? And if not, how long before LGBTQ-specific groups are denied access to the event?

Look, we all know Sydney Mardi Gras has been plagued by financial troubles for years. But don't label a financially-motivated rebranding as reflective of "acceptance." It disrespects the struggle queer individuals in Australia have gone through and only marginalizes them more.

The Ambiguously Gay Duo

2011-08-12T14:10:00.003-04:00

Seemingly out of nowhere, the Internets began acting up and decided it was time that Bert and Ernie stopped living a lie and acknowledged to the world that they are more than “just roommates.” One Chicago-area man took initiative and started an online petition on change.org demanding that the creators of Sesame Street acknowledged Bert and Ernie’s love for each other in an effort to teach kids about LGBTQ individuals and homophobia. The petition attracted more than 5,000 signatures and started a media firestorm.

These aren’t “Betty White Host SNL” numbers, but enough to attract the attention of a few bored journalists and bloggers.

Unfortunately, the petition had the exact opposite effect and the makers of Sesame Street announced: “Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.”

Bert and Ernie’s sexual orientation and relationship has, for some reason, long been a topic of conversation. I remember being an adolescent in the 90s and hearing about conservatives demanding that Bert and Ernie move out of the same house because the promoted homosexuality. The interest in the sex lives of these fictional characters is seemingly born out of the same curiosity of the relationships between Batman and Robin, Sam and Frodo, and Sherlock Holmes and Watson. However, the difference is the audience for Sesame Street is explicitly children and, as the creators have stated, they’re puppets.

I was never interested in Sesame Street (I’ll take The Muppet Show any day of the week, though), so I’ve always found the attempts to out Bert and Ernie as rather silly. I guess on one hand, I understand the LGBTQ rights movement’s desire to see them address their alleged love. In other television shows, longtime male and female companions always end up together – Mulder and Scully, Angela and Tony, and David and Maddie. So why shouldn’t it be the same for same-sex companions who seemingly share similar sexual chemistry?

On the other hand, our attempts to out Bert and Ernie don’t do much other than to give ammunition to the right. Gay people are so frequently accused of indoctrinating children into the lifestyle of homosexuality that focusing on Sesame Street just seems to prove the conservatives correct, in a sense. And why should we give them that? After all, they look extraordinarily foolish when they accuse TInky Winky or Spongebob Squarepants of being gay; so why don’t we go on letting them look paranoid without turning the tables on ourselves?

Not outing Bert and Ernie doesn’t meant there shouldn’t be LGBTQ characters on children’s television shows. Children should be exposed to all types of diversity. But, unfortunately, Sesame Street is an American institution and strong-arming the creators to “acknowledge the truth” only makes us come off as bullies.

The Homophobia Dilemma

2011-07-08T01:34:00.001-04:00

In June, Tracy Morgan got in a bit of trouble while he was performing standup in Nashville, after he made extremely homophobic remarks, going so far as to say he would stab his son if he turned out to be gay. Morgan’s comments resulted in several public apologies and condemnation from his boss Tina Fey.

Soon thereafter, singer Cee-Lo Green took to Twitter to make a (less inflammatory) remark, resulting in his immediate half-hearted apology. And a couple of days later, notorious domestic abuser Chris Brown was also recorded making homophobic remarks – resulting in his apology and declaration of love for the LGBTQ community.

All of these incidents happened shortly after the movie, The Dilemma, ignited a firestorm because in it, Vince Vaughn’s character called electric cars “gay.”

The LGBTQ rights movement has made unprecedented strides lately, but nothing so great as making homophobia the epitome of political incorrectness. Anytime a celebrity (not a politician, mind you) makes an anti-gay remark, HRC and GLAAD step up and call them out on it, demanding an apology immediately. Surprisingly, nine times out of ten, they get one. When you think about it, that’s pretty amazing; considering 1980s-comedians built careers on homophobic jokes (ahem, Eddie Murphy and Andrew Dice Clay).

However, like so many politically correct actions, I can’t help but feel the HRC and GLAAD are simply sweeping hatred under the rug.

Do I think Tracy Morgan and Chris Brown are homophobic? Yes. Do I think being forced to apologize has made them less homophobic? Absolutely not. In fact, in some cases, it’s probably made the celebrity more resentful of the LGBTQ community – when their money and livelihood are on the line because of an off-handed comment, I’m sure they get a little bitter (although Chris Brown has some other things to worry about).

This is not to say I think celebrities should get off scot-free. Especially in light of LGBTQ bullying and youth suicides, we know words hurt and have painful consequences. But, reading the apologies from Morgan, Brown, and Green also make it clear that celebrities have learned how to play HRC and GLAAD – “I didn’t mean it, I love the gay community.”

I also believe that there is an undercurrent of racism to many of criticisms coming out of Gay, Inc. I thought Vaughn, Howard, and Winona Ryder made some pretty homophobic statements in defense of The Dilemma, but not one of them issued an apology. Likewise, the release of The Hangover: Part II brought with it another round of homophobic and transphobic jokes – and HRC and GLAAD have remained suspiciously silent.

And what about all of the sexist remarks in film and music? Do those not warrant apologies?

Having media watchdog groups is a good thing, and at the very least, holds people accountable for their comments. But there comes a point when we must ask ourselves if the badgering of celebrities is creating positive social change, or really just making us look like whiners?

Post-Modern X-Men

2011-06-10T15:16:00.003-04:00

The summer blockbuster, X-Men: First Class, is a prequel to the four X-Men films that preceded it; offering some insight into how young Professor Xavier brought together a group of mutants and both caused and prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The X-Men franchise, under the direction of openly gay filmmaker, Bryan Singer, has drawn strong parallels to the LGBTQ rights movement; with characters having to “come out” as mutants to parents, friends, and relatives. Although creator Stan Lee acknowledges the parallels, Singer’s overt comparisons have drawn both praise and criticism from viewers.

X-Men: First Class, produced by Singer but directed by Matthew Vaughn, downplays the gay parallels and instead borrows a page from the Mad Men playbook, making light of the 1960s era sexism, racism, and xenophobia. But while it attempts to prove that it’s above societal “isms,” it inadvertently falls into the standard Hollywood trap that elevates straight, white, male characters above all others. Which leads me to wonder, has our society moved far enough beyond these “old era” attitudes that we can find humor and make light of them on film?

I realized that this wasn’t Bryan Singer’s X-Men during one of the opening scenes, when Rose Byrne’s character, CIA Agent Moira MacTaggert, goes “undercover” and scampers around Las Vegas in lingerie. Soon thereafter, the sole Black X-Man is the first and only “good guy” killed during the film. And the, presumably only, X-Woman of color is a sex worker who is “rescued” from her life of stripping, and is the first character to turn to the dark side – joining those mutants who decry peace and harmony and instead fight for world domination.

But still not recognizing its own failings, the 1960s-set film includes plenty of racist and sexist statements (“This is why we shouldn’t let women in the CIA”) that are meant to provide meta-humor for the audience who, obviously, must know better. And as I sat in the darkened theatre and laughed along with the rest of the audience, I questioned whether one or more of the viewers secretly agreed with the blatantly offensive statements.

The problem with Hollywood making light of our cultural biases is that it assumes we live in a post-racist, post-sexist, post-homophobic world – and we don’t. And unlike, say, Mad Men, which is targeted at well-educated, older adults; X-Men is made for adolescent boys (as evidenced by the Rose Byrne lingerie sequence), who most likely don’t know or understand the history and complexities associated with the civil rights, feminist, and LGBTQ rights movements.

Rarely should Hollywood be upheld as the beacon of social and cultural responsibility, but perhaps it’s getting a little ahead of itself. For an industry that still frowns upon openly gay male leading men and actresses bigger than a size two, maybe it could hold off on trying to gloss over America’s, and its own, xenophobic tendencies.

Funny Ladies

2011-05-13T16:01:00.003-04:00

A million years later, I return.

I'm incredibly sorry for my absence these past couples of months. I recently moved from Washington, DC to San Francisco and acclimatizing to a new locale has taken up much of my time. But I'm back and hopefully will be writing more regularly.

And lucky for me, I'm back just in time for Bridesmaids!

The media has been tripping over the Judd Apatow-produced comedy, Bridesmaids. Not only is it the filmmaker’s first female-centric movie, but critics and journalists seem to be genuinely surprised that a film with a predominately female cast could actually be funny.

I guess the 2008 remake of The Women is still fresh in everyone’s minds.

Almost every female comedian will tell you that comedy is an old boys club – women have always been in the minority, with many male comedians frequent questioning a woman’s ability to be funny. Female performers have never outnumbered their male counterparts on Saturday Night Live. The Daily Show seemingly features one token female reporter a year. And in Hollywood, comedies geared toward women typically need to be romantic in nature.

But in 2011, when attitudes have clearly changed, I’m a little surprised that so many are greeting the Kristen Wiig-penned Birdesmaids with such skepticism and shock.

I suppose it's a little naïve of me to expect anything different; focusing on the legitimacy of female comics is clearly reflective of larger, cultural attitudes towards women. But much like the pop music scene, film and television have become increasingly female dominated in recent years. We live in the age of Tina Fey, a woman who has won just about every award you could possibly imagine – beating out men and women – simply because she is funny. In fact, many female SNL alums from the 2000s have gone on to have very successful and critically lauded careers.

But Kristen Wiig, Tina Fey, and Amy Poehler are still considered humorous oddities, despite the fact that hundreds of funny women came before them. And many of these comediennes – from Betty White to Kathy Griffin – have intensely loyal and rabid fanbases that most male comedians seemingly lack (notable exception: Jon Stewart).

The other issue the media seems to be focusing on is whether or not American audiences will actually pay to see Bridesmaids. For some reason, many Hollywood pundits have a hard time believing that women go to the movies, or that men will pay to go see a movie starring a woman. Granted, Bridesmaids is opening at a time when the highest grossing films are Thor and Fast Five; but that’s exactly why it can and will draw an audience – it is the anecdote to the testosterone-fueled, mindless action flicks that pervade theatres week after week. Bridesmaids might not appeal to adolescent boys, but I know more than one adult male who will join me at a showing of Bridesmaids.

Granted, if it is a flop, it probably won’t break any glass ceilings or convince Hollywood to churn out more female-centric comedies. But with a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I’m hopeful.

Mars Needs Gender Stereotypes

2011-03-15T12:22:00.000-04:00

Disney animation is in a rut.

After more than half a century of churning out the most beloved animated films of all time, the legendary animation company has spent much of the 2000s producing underwhelming, box office disasters. I mean, c'mon, who could forget Chicken Little or Meet the Robinsons or Bolt? I had prior to writing this blog post.

Even when Disney got its act together and produced a high-quality animated film reminiscent of Beauty and the Beast, The Princess and the Frog still only managed mediocre box office returns at best. Let's face it, one word best sums up why Disney is still trying its hand at animation, and that word is: Pixar.

Disney has become so desperate that they've recruited Pixar's writers and producers to consult on their live action films as well, including the upcoming, The Muppets. I know Pixar is now a subsidiary of Disney, but guys, really? Maybe you should look more at Pixar's hiring practices and how they attract such talented storytellers, rather than trying to suck the creativity out of them.

Unfortunately, Disney was greeted with more bad news on Monday when the weekend box office numbers were released for their latest Pixar-less effort, Mars Needs Moms. The $175 million 3-D film opened at number five, grossing a paltry $6.9 million. Although Disney had high hopes for the film, they were quickly dampened after it averaged a 39% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

A day later and the blame game has already started, with industry insiders blaming everything from high-prices for 3D films to the film's producer, Academy Award winner Robert Zemeckis. And while I think there are a multitude of factors contributing to Mars' failure, I think it is indicative of Disney Animation's ongoing storytelling problem -- and their increasing inability to attract a female audience and develop strong female characters.

Having not seen the film (nor do I plan to), I must rely on the trailers to give me insight. As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), Mars is in desperate need of people to vacuum and make kids eat their vegetables. Seeing that Earth mothers serve no other purpose, the Martians abduct them with the hope of turning them into nagging slaves.

Well, I'm glad to see that once Disney Princesses get married, they can look forward to a sweet life of staying at home, laundry, and making babies.

Despite having built an empire on the backs of female-centric films, Disney has long suffered from both covert and overt misogyny. Dozens of writers have highlighted the negative effects the Disney Princesses can have on young girls. And when Disney makes a conscious effort to create a strong woman of color character (Tiana in The Princess and the Frog), the company goes on to blame that same character for the film's poor box office performance -- resulting in a complete rewriting and title change of another animated film to make it more boy-friendly (Tangled, which had been Rapunzel for most of its production).

But in 2011, it is disappointing that a mainstream Hollywood company would release a film that reduces motherhood to preconceived gender roles and thankless labor. This is of course coupled with the film's alleged homophobic message, underpinned by the movie's "universal truth" that kids must be raised by one mom and one dad. At least with the Princesses, little girls didn't know what "happily ever after" entailed; but after seeing Mars Needs Moms, maybe they won't be so quick to rush into marriage with that so-called Prince Charming.

What Disney really needs to do now is evolve -- and evolution doesn't mean relying solely on Pixar for box office success (and Pixar has yet to produce a film featuring a female lead; although 2012's Brave will be Pixar's first foray into Princess territory). What worked for Walt Disney and 20th Century audiences clearly is not working now. Pixar might be able to point Disney in the right direction, but it's time for the company to reevaluate the character and story structures on a deeper level.

Born This Way: What Makes a Gay Anthem?

2011-02-11T14:05:00.001-05:00

Lady Gaga's new song, "Born This Way," debuted to much fanfare this morning. The lead single off the album of the same name, which Gaga predicts will be the album of the decade, is a self-empowering anthem that speaks to her "little monsters" and tells them to embrace who they are.

Unfortunately, like much of what Gaga has done recently, the song has been met with mixed reactions and skeptical criticisms.

I was one of the first to purchase "Born This Way" when it was released on iTunes at 9am ET today, and I also had a less than ecstatic reaction upon first listen (compared with my reaction when I first heard "Bad Romance"). I first feared the worst when Gaga released the heavy-handed lyrics on Twitter, but reserved judgment until I heard the song in its entirety. And now that I've listened to it repeatedly, my thoughts are similar to those I had towards Britney's new single, "Hold It Against Me" -- not my favorite song, but I accept it as the next step in her musical repertoire.

As I've been reading through music blogs, Facebook comments, and tweets, much has been made about the so-called similarities between "Born This Way" and Madonna's 1989 empowerment anthem, "Express Yourself." We heard similar rumblings when "Alejandro" came out last year, with Gaga decriers screaming that is was nothing more than "La Isla Bonita" redux.

I am an avid, fanatic even, Madonna aficionado. She remains my all-time favorite singer, despite the legions of pop stars who have attempted to dethrone her. However, while I think there are definite similarities within the backing music and lyrical sentiment, I don't really hear "Born This Way" as a replica of "Express Yourself." And, although I love both artists and truly believe Madonna set the standard for all female pop acts after her, I think we are forgetting just how much Madonna "borrowed" from those artists before her.

Let's look at one of Madonna's more recent works, 2005's Confessions on a Dance Floor. After the commercial disaster that was American Life, Madonna plagiarized her 1980s self to make a triumphant return to the club with songs reminiscent of her glory days. However, the album that earned her a Grammy (Best Dance/Electronic Album) was full of samples and blatant rip-offs. Lead single, "Hung Up" featured the infectiously catchy sample from ABBA's "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight);" while second single "Sorry" borrowed an uncredited bassline from the Jackson 5. And album-track "Future Love" is clearly Donna Summer's "I Feel Love," and the two were performed together by Madonna during her Confessions Tour.

Confessions proved to be Madonna's second most successful album of the 00s (after 2000's Music), yet never was she met with accusations of ripping off other artists. Granted, Madonna is Madonna and she had 20+ years under her belt, but sampling and "homages" are nothing new to the music industry, and Madonna certainly hasn't been above copying someone else's sound or style.

The LGBTQ community, who has so far been Gaga's biggest supporter, has been particularly lukewarm to "Born This Way," both pre and post release. Some (not Elton John) resent Gaga for trying to force a so-called "gay anthem" upon them, which is traditionally not how it happens. Gloria Gaynor, we believe, didn't set out to make the epitome of gay anthems; neither, again allegedly, did Kylie Minogue. Gay anthems are organic in nature, and those artists who attempt to consciously make one are rarely successful.

However, as much as I love Madonna, she was nearly as blatant in her appropriation of and regurgitation to the LGBTQ community as Gaga is today. If you don't believe me, rent Paris is Burning. We would have never had "Vogue" had Madonna not stolen the very style from NYC gay clubs and made it more readily available for public consumption. Likewise, her androgynous clothing in "Express Yourself" was nothing Annie Lennox hadn't done years earlier. Fortunately for Madonna, being gay in the 80s was still very taboo and her appropriation of LGBTQ culture went unnoticed by those outside the community. And the community simultaneously embraced her for doing so. But even if you're quick to judge Gaga and praise Madonna, if you believe either (or any straight gay icon) embraced the LGBTQ community without seeing the pink dollar flashing in their eyes, you're out of touch with reality.

This brings me to the question: why are we still relying on straight women to sing our gay male anthems? Traditionally, back to Judy Garland and before, gay men (and women) found comfort in songs that spoke of unrequited love and feeling like an outsider. Music was the escape from a life that was often hateful and violent. But in 2011, shouldn't LGBTQ artists be the ones making gay anthems? And it's not like we are hurting for openly gay musical acts! Scissor Sisters, Adam Lambert, Tegan and Sara, Gossip. And while all have seen some measure of success (especially overseas), none of them have come close to matching Madonna or Gaga's popularity.

Right now, Lady Gaga is going through something the Aussies call "tall poppy syndrome." It's a moment in time when a person, a celebrity, becomes so popular that the fans that brought them fame and success are the same fans that try to tear them down for some unknown reason (its theorized that it might be envy). Kylie Minogue went through it in the 1990s, as did Madonna. Although many consider it uniquely Australian, I think its exactly what Gaga is going through right now in the US (and around the world). Perhaps it's her overt self-confidence that borderlines on arrogance. Maybe it's because she refuses to respond to the comparisons to Madonna and other artists. But whatever it is, right now, Gaga's little monsters are trying to eat her alive.

It was naive of Gaga to attempt to consciously create a gay anthem and force it upon us. However, as Dodai Stewart over at Jezebel points out, "Even if you find this kind of cause-dropping a leeeetle pedantic and slightly holier-than-thou, the fact that kids around the world — from gay bars to guido-filled clubs — will be shimmying and fist-pumping to a song celebrating 'transgender life' is pretty notable"

Harry's Law: Not So Black & White

2011-02-01T11:39:00.001-05:00

I have been on a lookout for a new show for a while. Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, and Brothers & Sisters are all winding down (or should be winding down, if they knew what was good for them) and I wanted to find a new weekly drama. Surprisingly, I am not a Gleek, nor have I tuned into Modern Family. Nothing personal, I just haven't had the motivation. Perhaps one day on Netflix.

Then I began reading about a new law series from David E. Kelley starring one of my favorite actresses, Kathy Bates, called Harry's Law. A midseason replacement on NBC, Harry's Law follows the story of Harry (or Harriet), a patent lawyer who is fired from her job and opens a new law firm in a rundown shoe store in the slums of Cincinnati.

Being a casual fan of Boston Legal, I thought this sounded like a quirky compliment to the zany adventures over at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt. Plus, I really do love Kathy Bates and like to support older actresses in lead roles. I tuned into the pilot, which was not perfect but gave the series and its characters room to grow, and decided I would continue to give the show a shot.

Three episodes in and Harry's Law is slowly coming into its own. It features Kelley's trademark wit and preachy closing arguments, but the lead (and supporting) cast are likable enough that I indulge them as they school me on the inequalities in America.

Something that I have noticed in Harry's Law that did not stand out in the high-end law firms in Ally McBeal and Boston Legal, is the revolving door of people of color who play the murderers, thieves, and parolees who come to Harriet's Law and Fine Shoes. And since all the lawyers in the law firm are white (there is one Black paralegal, who was cleared of a drug charge in the pilot), Kelley has inadvertently crafted a series around the idea of the white man as the savior.

I suppose a lot of this could be explained away as situational. The show takes place in the inner city; and Cincinnati's population is actually pretty evenly split between its white and black residents (compared to Boston's 56% white and 23% African-American). However, I watched last night as Harry appealed a parole ruling for an innocent Black man; while her associate fought for the right of Chinese laundromat owners to fire an employee because she was pregnant with her second child, and I couldn't help but be reminded of The Blind Side and similar titles that reinforce the notion that the white man will save people of color from all that ails them.

Kelley is known for the liberal bent he applies to all of his shows. Harry, much like Alan Shore (James Spader), uses her closing arguments to educate the judges and jury on injustices and inequality, having heavily critiqued US drug laws in the first episode. However, aside from his legal inaccuracies, Kelley has been criticized before for his portrayal of women (Kathy Bates is almost the anti-Calista Flockhart) and lack of diversity among cast-members. Even still, I don't think Kelley (or the show's producers) are necessarily aware of the racial stereotypes he is promoting by, so far, having all of the "criminals" in Harry's Law played by people of color.

Granted, yesterday was only the third episode of the series, and since it has been performing well, it should have a fair amount of time to grow and correct any current missteps (such as casting Brittany Snow as a glorified extra). But the producers must be mindful that they don't fall into the CSI trap -- where every week, the "villain" is a person of color, a member of the LGBTQ community, or a part of another minority group. Or more importantly: that Harriet's Law and Fine Shoes doesn't remain so white-washed.

Too Much Skin?

2011-01-25T13:55:00.001-05:00

Here we go again.

The ~~waste of money~~ Parents Television Council (PTC) has declared another war on television, this time against MTV's new series, Skins. And while the PTC has, in the past, used arguments of societal erosion and unhealthy behavior when waging war on pop culture, this time around they have seemingly found the trump card: child pornography.

I must admit that I haven't seen MTV's adaption of the British series; however, I am a fan of the UK show and have been catching up with it thanks to Netflix. And judging from the previews I have seen and reviews I have read, the US adaption seems fairly true to the original -- which comes as somewhat of a shock.

It's no surprise the PTC is angry -- I mean, when are they not?! But up until now, the only teen shows they've really had to worry about are Degrassi and everything on the CW. And while these shows have at times been topical and even shocking, nothing really holds a candle to (at least the UK version of) Skins.

This is possibly because the writers really enjoy kicking their characters while they're down. There are no real "heroes" in the show; only people you enjoy before they do something stupid or ridiculous (in the British series, I really loved Cassie). The UK version also keeps the show very high school-focused by changing the cast every two years. So unlike Degrassi or 90210, there are no awkward university transitions with characters too old to be relevant to the central narrative. It will be interesting if A. the US version lasts beyond one season, and B. if MTV will mirror the original with its constantly revolving cast. I guess that's what they do with The Real World, isn't it?

In the past, when the PTC has decried shows like Glee or Gossip Girl, there has been little response from advertisers or viewers. In fact, I would attribute some of Gossip Girl's initial popularity to the fuss the PTC made over it. But what has set Skins a part is the use of actual high school-aged actors when portraying drug use, drinking, and sex. Degrassi also uses real teenagers (as in, under 18), but seeing as how it is on Teen Nick, the sex happens mostly off-screen. And most network primetime shows play it safe by hiring legal, twentysomething actors to portray teens.

So in addition to decrying Skins using their normal adjectives, the PTC has thrown in accusations of "child pornography" and that has sent advertisers running! Rumors are now abounding that MTV execs have ordered producers to tone down future episodes and avoid questionable nudity. Even though sex sells, money talks.

The rumored neutering of Skins is absolutely ridiculous and misses the point of the franchise completely. The reason the British series was so successful, and why MTV latched on to a remake, was because it wasn't like every other teenage show on television. Some have heralded the explicitness as realism; and while I am no longer a teenager so I can neither confirm nor deny, I can say that Skins' difference is what makes it refreshing. The audience for Skins does not watch it to be turned on, or I don't believe so; and certainly no more than the audience for Jersey Shore does that show. What these two, very different MTV shows have in common is their extreme characters that can and do appear outlandish to us; while perhaps containing some relatable character trait.

By opening up this Pandora's box that is child pornography, PTC has inadvertently stumbled upon an argument that could be utilized against any show that employs underage actors. In theory, PTC could merely suggest child pornography and a network would self-censor, as MTV is supposedly doing. Not that shows aimed at teenage viewers need to be sexually explicit, but working under the perpetual threat of legal action inherently stifles the creative process. And while producers should be mindful of social and legal boundaries, the work should not suffer as a result.

The Price of Freedom (According to Republicans)

2011-01-24T11:36:00.002-05:00

After taking the first steps towards lowering the deficit by outlawing taxpayer-funded abortions (oh that's right, that would save us $0), House Republicans unveiled their proposed cuts to the national budget which they claim will save $2.5 trillion over ten years. What they delivered us, however, was less a serious reduction in spending and more the Republican platform implemented through legislative action.

Among the proposed cuts, here are the ones I thought were most notable:

Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

All right, let me first voice my frustration as a DC resident. As you may know, Washington, DC is not a state despite our repeated attempts to obtain statehood. We remain a District due, in part, to Republican opposition to making us a state and/or giving us a full-voting representative in Congress since the city is overwhelmingly Democratic (around 85%). Since we aren't a state, the Federal Government subsidizes a lot of our public services (like roads, public transit, etc) so we can continue to function and not fall into complete disrepair.

Additionally, in the most recent census, the DC-Metro Area saw a huge influx of people, with the city itself topping 600,000 people. As it stands, we are the 27th largest city in the US and the 8th largest metropolitan statistical area.

Despite this fact, Republicans are proposing to cut $360 million from our budget (including the Metro subsidy) at a time when DC is already facing a budget shortfall. In short my fellow Washingtonians: we are fucked!

Most of these Republican cuts are short-term solutions which will ultimately come back to bite us in our collective ass. Notably, the proposed reduction in alternative energy research and environmental protections. The only reason these are on the table is because the new crop of House Republicans are so vehemently anti-climate change and backed by Big Oil. Despite their beliefs though, every single energy trader and financial analyst will tell you that oil prices will continue to climb, most likely hitting $5 a gallon in the next few years. Cutting the FreedomCAR program and alternative energy research might save the federal government money initially, but will do nothing to help the consumer and will ultimately cost the federal government more money in the long run. The same goes for the Amtrak subsidy.

Speaking of the consumer, while I understand the federal civilian workforce is quite large, I'm a little confused on how laying off 15% of that workforce will stimulate the economy? Likewise, repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires fair wages on public works projects, also seems like a misguided attempt to save money. Yes, it will reduce the deficit, but thousands of federal government contractors (many of them in the construction industry) will see their wages cut. How will this improve the economic climate?!

Cutting Title X (family planning services) is pretty much in line with the Republicans' belief that the rhythm method is the best way to prevent pregnancy. But if millions lose access to contraception and condoms, won't that just make a sicker and poorer population that will utilize federal monies in other ways (i.e. Medicaid)?

Sadly, the arts are always the first to go, so its not surprising to see the Endowment to the Arts and Humanities on the chopping block. Even sadder is that this might be a compromise the Democrats will agree to go along with. But the reduction in funding to PBS is out of total spite, and borne out of a long held belief by conservatives that public broadcasting is the mouthpiece of the left.

What is missing from this list is the supposed military spending cuts the House Republicans spent all weekend claiming they are in favor of. Granted, the defense budget is a separate bill altogether; but if Republicans are serious about making a significant dent in the federal deficit, they need to identify what they would cut from the military (cuts supported by Defense Secretary Gates and Colin Powell). This is where most of our money is going, so I'm sure we can cut a few dozen planes or boats from our arsenal.

Tomorrow's State of the Union is expected to be a first realistic step towards cutting federal spending, with the President expected to outline areas to cut back on, while simultaneously highlighting areas where we actually need to increase spending (like maybe education). But what we need the Senate Democrats, and Obama, to do is not give in to everything. The Republicans are going to put up quite a fight, and the Dems are known for backing away with their tail between their legs. But there are many areas in the government where we can reduce spending, but we can't hand the Republicans their ideal budget served up on a silver platter.

Don't Blame Me, I Voted Pro-Choice!

2011-01-21T12:12:00.001-05:00

Despite promises of a co-mingled Congress during President Obama's State of the Union next week, Republicans and Democrats are as divided as ever as House Speaker Boehner (R-8th-OH) moves to push America to the right at rapid speed. And after voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the next target on the House Republicans' chopping block is: taxpayer funded abortion?

I was not aware that my tax dollars were being used to abort fetuses. In fact, I was pretty sure they weren't. And didn't Obama sign an executive order last year reaffirming the ban on taxpayer funded abortions? In fact, I believe the Hyde Amendment pretty much takes care of this issue each year when Congress votes on it. Ooooh! But the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would make the Hyde Amendment permanent! Well then it must be enacted immediately!

Less than two months after Republicans gained control of the House and they've already broken campaign promises and gone against the public's will.

Despite what some in the GOP believe, their victory in November was not a sign that America wanted to ban same-sex marriage, make condoms illegal, and outlaw abortion. The Republican win was almost entirely economically motivated, as every single voter poll indicated leading up to the mid-term election. But despite Boehner's promise that they would focus on the economy, the repeal of health care reform, attempts to reinstate Don't Ask Don't Tell, and now a focus on abortion goes to show that Republicans are quick to betray the moderates and independent voters who elected them not out of a similar social ideology, but out of concern for the economy (which was a little misguided to believe to begin with).

News of the unnecessary taxpayer-funded abortion ban comes shortly after my home-state of Kansas moved toward restricting abortion access to its residents. Acting on a request from newly elected Governor Sam Brownback (yuck), the state legislature looks set to pass a bill that requires two-parent notification and consent when a teenager seeks an abortion, while also making abortion records available to law enforcement officials.

The bill is incredibly disappointing, but not surprising, from a candidate who promised to put his conservative social ideology aside for two years and focus solely on the Kansas economy if elected Governor. And like his compatriots in DC, it took less than two months for this Republican Governor to misread the political climate and go back on his word. And unfortunately, Kansas is so overwhelmingly conservative (minus Lawrence, KS) that Brownback can pass the most restrictive legislation imaginable with little outcry from the masses.

As we honor the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, its disheartening to know that the officials elected on the hope of economic reform have so quickly and vehemently shown their true colors. But really, should we have expected anything different? The Tea Party might downplay social issues, but at the end of the day these so-called freedom fighters are all too ready to restrict reproductive freedom and choice.

Similar to when Democrats took control of Congress (both houses) in 2006, I'm sure Republicans were ecstatic to get the chance to force their social ideology onto the people, but they were not elected in 2010 to ban abortion. In a time of economic upheaval, I believe abortion -- even so-called taxpayer-funded abortions -- is pretty far from most people's minds. If I was struggling to pay my mortgage and feed my family, I'm pretty sure what someone else does with their body is the least of my concerns. And with the Republicans so quickly acting against the will of the people by focusing on petty social issues, it shows us they are less concerned with voters and more concerned with exercising their political might.

Don't Call It a Comeback

2011-01-13T10:05:00.001-05:00

Britney Spears made history this week when her new single, "Hold It Against Me," dropped and shot to #1 on iTunes charts around the world. In the US, the song received more radio spins in one day than any other song in history. Most expect the song will debut at number one on next week's Billboard Hot 100 chart.

In anticipation of Britney's latest release, the music critics and gossipmongers spoke optimistically of Britney's "comeback," anticipating another electro-pop masterpiece from the sometimes vapid singer. Many also pitted the icon against pop's latest queen, Lady Gaga, who will release her new single, "Born This Way," on February 13, 2011.

Although many of the writers speak of Britney and Gaga in flattering terms (no longer is Britney regarded as pop garbage; and despite her personal troubles, she has seemingly achieved a level of musical respect that Madonna obtained with the release of Ray of Light), most of the articles and reviews have an underpinning of sexism that I suspect many journalists are unaware they're promoting, yet has become standard when speaking about female singers.

By my count, this is Britney's third "official" comeback. 2007's Blackout was her comeback from the failed marriage to Kevin Federline, only to be overshadowed by her apparent psychotic breakdown and court-ordered conservatorship. Then 2008's Circus was a return to sanity for Britney, who embarked on a successful world tour. And now, her untitled 2011 album is a comeback from -- vacation?

Britney is not the only one whom is frequently spoken of as though she has risen from the dead. Christina Aguilera was decried for her "failed comeback album," 2010's Bionic; only to be hailed for her spectacular comeback months later in the film musical, Burlesque. Each Kylie Minogue album is also treated as a surprising offering from a pop star who never really went away to begin with (excluding her 2005 battle with breast cancer). And Rihanna is spoken of in the same way.

Yet, the terminology surrounding male performers is less grandiose. Coldplay releases albums far less frequently than the aforementioned pop princesses, but critics don't hail each album release as a musical resurrection. Usher, who has recently taken to borrowing musical cues from Gaga, is simply praised for his ongoing contribution to pop music. And Enrique Iglesias, who scored big in 2010 with "I Like It," hadn't seen a top ten hit since 2001's "Hero" -- but you'd never know it from reading album reviews, many of which merely compared the two singles as though they existed in the same time and place.

Although women continue to dominate the pop music industry, the level of respect and acceptance remains at an all time low. Sadly, Madonna is probably to blame for this ongoing devaluing of musically-inclined women. With every album, she reinvented her image -- unintentionally shooting herself in the foot and hindering her ability to simply produce music without a gimmick. Critics and fans began to expect this constant musical and image shift, and 25 years into her career and Madonna's image is rarely stagnant and never neutral. Kylie Minogue recognized this technique early on and adopted similar tactics as her career thrived overseas; so by the time Britney and Christina arrived in 1998, reinvention became the norm for female pop stars.

The constant pressure to reinvent is, itself, inherently sexist; as it assumes that female pop singers have such little musical value that they have to perform behind smoke and mirrors in order to get noticed. It has also produced media-created rivalries, which I have criticized before. Why does it have to be a competition between Gaga and Britney? Why can't the two just exist and produce music peacefully? Journalists also treat Black performers in a similar manner, cultivating feuds among male and female hip hop artists that frequently have no basis in reality.

I'm sure critics would point toward album sales as indication of success of these perpetual comebacks and reinventions, but few artists (including Madonna) would label such efforts as never-ending comebacks. For years, Madonna didn't even acknowledge her efforts as reinventions, but instead referred to them as part of an ongoing evolution. And isn't that what Britney has been going through really? Growing up and finding her way (even if it has been guided by her father, of late)? That's why we follow singers and bands, really. Something about their musical evolution rings true for us and so we silently agree to go on this journey with them.

She may not be Paul McCartney, but Britney's been steadily releasing pop music for thirteen years now so I think we can safely say she's established and no longer "coming back" from anything.

Tragic Parallels - The Power of Words

2011-01-10T13:01:00.001-05:00

As most of us know by now, Democratic Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords (D-8th-AZ) and four others were shot by a lone gunman on Saturday afternoon at a Safeway in Tuscon, Arizona. Although she was shot in the head, Giffords miraculously survived and is currently in a medically-induced coma.

Since Saturday, more and more details have emerged about the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner apparently had a long-time grudge against Giffords and had been planning the assassination for a while. He also posted animated videos on his YouTube account that highlighted his belief in government mind control.

Despite initial evidence that Loughner was not affiliated with the Tea Party, nor a radical conservative, the Party and its unofficial leader, Sarah Palin, have come under fire for inciting violence against Democratic candidates, Rep. Giffords in particular. Palin's 2010 "Hit List" has become infamous for its marking of Giffords district with a crosshair, in what appears to be a to an unfortunate, but possibly inevitable, turn of events for the former governor who prides herself on inflammatory rhetoric and frequent gun-slinging.

Palin released a brief statement on Facebook expressing grief, but has yet to discuss her coincidental connection with the shooting.

The days following the tragedy have seen people on both sides of the aisle arguing over who's to blame -- especially given the fact that Loughner is, most likely, mentally disturbed. Liberals' reactions have ranged from blaming Palin outright to calling on a more civil public discourse. Conservatives have been quick to defend Palin, with others going so far as to say inflammatory rhetoric is a part of the political process now and shouldn't be toned down.

When I first learned of the shooting, I did have an initial gut reaction that was motivated by anger. Before knowing anything about the shooter, I blamed Republicans outright and wanted House Speaker Boehner to perhaps shed a few tears for Giffords. My anger then turned to Palin, and my initial conversations with friends agreed with those that blamed her hateful speech and slogans for the attack.

Two days later, however, and I now find myself drawing parallels between the shooting in Tuscon with another national tragedy that attracted the media spotlight last year: the frequency of LGBTQ teen suicides. While the connections may be marginal in some respects (Giffords was a strong ally of LGBTQ people), at the center of both tragedies is the emerging theme of the power of words.

Again, we have no evidence that Loughner was incited to violence by Palin or conservative rhetoric, but even if he wasn't directly, this incident must serve as a wake-up call to how language can affect people in unimaginable ways. Just as how many LGBTQ youth take their own lives after physical and verbal bullying, many other Americans can and will be prompted to express anger and frustration in other ways after hearing a particularly inflammatory speech or campaign ad. Let's not forget the death threats sent to many Congressional members who voted for health care reform (especially after Palin invented the death panels).

While it might be misguided and inappropriate to place all of the blame on Sarah Palin or the Tea Party, we have the opportunity to recognize and reflect on the difference between hateful language and civil disagreement. Inciting people to violence is not an appropriate response to political discord. And although its very easy to say, "I never meant for my words to be interpreted like that;" if you are actively participating in the public sphere, it is important to remember how your words may impact those who hear or read them.

My thoughts and condolences go out to those involved in the tragedy in Tuscon.

Wishful Outing

2010-12-16T15:16:00.001-05:00

While promoting her one-woman show, Wishful Drinking, writer-actress Carrie Fisher gave an interview to LGBTQ newsmagazine, The Advocate, in which she unexpectedly outed John Travolta. The item about Travolta is actually a reiteration of something she said in 2009; but as Fisher clarifies, Travolta's sexual orientation is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood.

If I weren't already so obsessed with Star Wars, I would almost certainly fall more deeply in love with Ms. Fisher after her unexpectedly honest comment.

Fisher's outing of her good friend has reopened the debate of whether or not tabloids, magazines, gossip sites, and journalists have the right to out celebrities, or if their private lives should remain private despite their otherwise public personas.

As I have touched on briefly in the past, outing people is always a tricky subject -- and in light of bullying that is borne out of perceived sexual orientation, it seems the world is suddenly more aware of the consequences of assigning someone a sexual or gender identity without their permission.

The thing is, John Travolta isn't some mild-mannered schoolboy. He's not in the same league as Ricky Martin, Lance Bass, and Neil Patrick Harris, all of whom say they were minding their own business until the media (and Perez Hilton) pressured them to come out. No, Travolta has spent much of his career suing those who accuse him of being gay (as he is threatening to do to Gawker right now), while simultaneously promoting a "religion" that believes homosexuality is a disease (cured by exercise). Therefore, I lump Travolta in the category of anti-gay, closeted politicians: it might not be right to out them, but I certainly don't mind when it happens.

Surprisingly, Fisher's outing of Travolta doesn't seem to be at all malicious. She's very matter of fact about it and reiterates that by ignoring it for so long, its become a bigger deal than it ever would have been if he'd just pulled a Jodie Foster and chosen to not talk about it, but also chosen not to present an air of false heterosexuality.

Travolta's wife, Kelly Preston, complicates matters. Reasons for her part in covering up Travolta's gay tendencies have ranged from the bizarre rumors (faking pregnancies) to the more probable (she's in it for the fame/money). And while they have somehow created a "family," Travolta's choice to marry a woman while attacking those who would suggest he's gay promote the idea that being gay remains something to be ashamed of.

As this week winds down, another closeted celebrity has entered the debate and taken a different route than Travolta, and that is Kevin Spacey. Long believed to be gay, Spacey was asked outright in an interview with The Daily Beast if he was, but he did not budge. And unlike Travolta, he did not decry the interviewer for asking, instead questioning why an actor's sexuality is anybody's business. At the same time, he inadvertently defends Travolta, saying, "People have different reasons for the way they live their lives. You cannot put everyone's reasons in the same box. It's just a line I've never crossed and never will."

But Spacey, and in that regard Jodie Foster and Queen Latifah, are entirely different than Travolta. Spacey, Foster, and Latifah have remained 100% silent on anything relating to their private lives; and they most certainly haven't sued anyone for outing them. Travolta clearly picks and chooses which aspects of his private life he'll flaunt in public. He might not advertise his trips to bathhouses, but he and Preston were more than willing to give numerous interviews about their son's tragic death last year.

And that's where Travolta does the most harm: his actions send clear messages of what he considers to be good behavior (heterosexuality) and bad behavior (homosexuality). He might not be as influential as Justin Bieber, but he is a visible face in Hollywood. A face that is seen by millions of people each year.

Burlesque

2010-12-01T13:15:00.002-05:00

*Spoilers Alert*

While others sat down with their families over the Thanksgiving holiday, I ventured to the movie theater to enjoy the company of my loved ones: Cher and Christina Aguilera.

I have been a longtime Cher fan, having exhibited gay tendencies from a very early age. When "Believe" came out in 1998, it was like an awakening and I went out a purchased most of her back catalog and rented all of her movies. When an episode of The X-Files prominently featured Cher (well, a Cher impersonator), it was like a merging of my two loves and I was ecstatic. She was the first concert I ever attended (in 1999) and I have since seen her live two more times, including earlier this year in Las Vegas.

When it was announced that Cher would be co-starring with Christina Aguilera in a film set in a burlesque club, gays everywhere gasped for joy -- and I was one of them. Although my love for Aguilera has been overshadowed by my love for her contemporaries, her feminist identity backed by undeniable talent has always kept her in the back of my mind. Likewise, as time has gone on, Cher has frequently disappeared for my radar, so whenever she pops up on a playlist its like I'm in middle school all over again.

Prior to its opening, I was a little skeptical about Burlesque, as were most it seems. Sure, the concept and cast were intriguing, but there was one question that loomed over the entire project: Would this be Showgirls 2? And while there are definite similarities, I say no.

On the surface, Burlesque is essentially Showgirls meets Moulin Rouge meets The Muppets. Quite an odd combination, I know, but this is the premise: Little orphan Aguilera leaves small-town Iowa for Los Angeles, with nothing but a pocketful of dreams -- dreams of becoming a famous singer and dancer. One day she wanders into a burlesque club owned by the hard-on-the-outside-soft-on-the-inside Cher and her gay best friend, Stanley Tucci. Aguilera is amazed by what she sees and soon works her way up to lead showgirl, packing in audiences with her voice and her moves. Along the way, she also falls in love with a bartender and helps Cher save the club from financial ruin, in a very "Let's save the Muppet theatre!" moment. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Writer/director, Steve Antin, crafts a flimsy plot that, frankly, isn't terribly interesting and all feels done before. I could care less about Aguilera's love life in the movie, and I wondered what about the storyline actually convinced Cher to sign on? In fact, Cher's character and her storyline are very much supporting, and sadly, also the most interesting parts of the plot.

What saves this film from mirroring Showgirls ruin is, 100%, the actors. This is not a movie that draws you in with its riveting plot. It is a movie you go see purely to see what is an extended music video starring Cher and Christina Aguilera. Each of the original songs and their accompanying performances are fantastic and showstopping. Even the non-singing parts are bolstered by the quality of actors. Cher and Stanley Tucci have great chemistry, and I think Tucci could spend the rest of his career alternating between movies co-starring Cher and films co-starring Meryl Streep. Kristen Bell is also delightful as the bitchy-drunk, despite her questionable singing and dancing abilities.

However, the biggest acting surprise is Aguilera. Granted, much of her performance relies on her signature voice, but she does the best with the material given and has possibly discovered a new career path (especially after her disaster of an album, Bionic). It also reminds us that even though pop music does churn out actresses with questionable acting abilities (i.e. Madonna, Britney Spears), every once in a while we do get a Cher or Liza Minnelli.

I was disappointed with the underutilized Alan Cumming. Probably cast for his trademark androgyny and connection with Cabaret, his role as ticket-taker could just as easily been played by an unknown actor, or even an extra. Although he may not be as well known as Cher or Aguilera, but he does have the singing and dancing skills that could have been put to better use.

The most obvious flaw with the film is, perhaps, the title itself. What Aguilera does isn't really burlesque, per se. The musical numbers are all very heavily influenced by Moulin Rouge, and more reminiscent of the Pussycat Dolls than Dita Von Teese. Even the local burlesque shows I frequent are more a celebration of the vaudeville-era than the strip club-burlesque hybrid the Pussycat Dolls made famous. And ultimately the girls are all the same age and body type and could just have easily been in the background of a music video.

However, Burlesque is not a bad way to spend two hours. Just remind yourself as you go into the theater: I'm here to see singing divas, not watch Schindler's List.

5 Years Later - A Reflection on Brokeback Mountain

2010-11-23T13:09:00.001-05:00

Last night I watched the 1997 British film, Bent. Starring Clive Owen, the movie is an adaptation of the play by the same name, which follows a gay German man in a concentration camp during World War II. Not only was I surprised to see Clive Owen as the lead character, but the amount of overt man-on-man sexual imagery shocked me and made me double check the date of the film's release. Surely 1997 must be a typo -- that was the year Ellen DeGeneres came out on American shores, and years before Queer as Folk brought softcore gay sex into American homes.

But as Netflix has shown me over the years, despite their reserved public persona the British have been light-years ahead of American filmmakers when it comes to depictions of LGBTQ characters, relationships, and most importantly, sex. As I stared in wide-eyed wonderment of the graphic orgy appearing before my eyes in Bent, I couldn't help but remember how "shocked" American audiences were by the barely PG-13-rated sex scene in the Oscar-winning 2005 film, Brokeback Mountain.

It has been five years since Brokeback came out and it has proven to have changed the world in unexpected ways. Although it was a box office success and won three Oscars, it lost the Academy Award for Best Picture to Crash (I personally think neither film deserved it). It established Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Williams, and Anne Hathaway as talented, grown-up, and legitimate actors. And it reminded us of Ang Lee's visual mastery, for which he was handsomely rewarded. But when it comes to LGBTQ inclusion, Brokeback seems to be almost a footnote in the history of gay cinema, generating no real noticeable change to the realm of mainstream movies.

Since 2005, only one other LGBTQ-centric film has garnered the amount of buzz that accompanied Brokeback, and that is 2008's Milk. Personally, I feel that Milk is a far superior film all around -- better performances, engaging story, and more emotionally charged. But in terms of gay sex, Milk also fails to live up to its British, or television counterparts. The film also failed to generate the box office revenue that Brokeback did, grossing only $30 million domestically compared to Brokeback's $83 million. This year another queer indie film is expected to sweep awards season, and that is the lesbian-marriage drama, The Kids Are All Right. And although we see a lot of heterosexual sex, the gay sex is confined to under the sheets; and while it did prove to be financially successful, again, it came nowhere close to recapturing Brokeback's box office magic. Which is surprising since, like Milk, Kids is generally considered to be a better film.

This is not to say that the only gauge of an LGBTQ-themed film's success is its box office returns, but despite three major "successful" gay films, Hollywood has yet to produce a mainstream gay film, big budget and all. And while American television is littered with LGBTQ characters, complete with captivating storylines and emotions, Hollywood has continued to relegate LGBTQ characters to the role of "sassy best friend" in awful romantic comedies.

Brokeback brought along with it the promise of a better movie landscape for LGBTQ characters. One with realistic characters, fully-realized sex lives, and substantive storylines. Instead, LGBTQ-themed movies are still confined to art houses and film festivals, and it doesn't look like Hollywood intends to change its course anytime soon. Just look at the Jim Carrey-Ewan McGregor comedy, I Love You Phillip Morris. The film received rave reviews last year, was distributed around the world, but could not find a distributor in the US -- mainly because of a graphic gay sex scene involving Carrey. It will finally hit indie theaters in December, 6 months to a year after it has been released in countries around the world.

If foreign cinema and television have been leading the way, why is Hollywood so slow on the uptake? Its not as though every film coming out of LA costs $200 million to make and is targeted at adolescent boys. Just look at Tyler Perry. Although many in the Black community would criticize Perry's contribution to African-American film, he has built an empire on female-centric films targeting a specific segment of the population, namely African-Americans. As a result, nearly every single one of his films has received mediocre reviews but been met with great box office success. So I am left wondering, where is the LGBTQ equivalent? Hollywood knows the audience is there, but still chooses to hope that we'll be appeased with a supporting role in the latest Julia Roberts comedy.

Granted, there is no Tyler Perry-equivalent for Latino- or Asian- Americans, which is also a shame. But five years ago, I was promised that Hollywood would be more reflective of me, my life, and my friends, and it just isn't so. And while I can turn on Brothers & Sisters or Desperate Housewives, I am forced to assume that the flamboyantly effeminate character in How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days is gay and the closest I'm going to get to a relatable LGBTQ character.

So thanks Brokeback Mountain. I guess.

If Cher Could Turn Back Time

2010-11-15T14:26:00.001-05:00

The always delightful Cher appeared on David Letterman's show last week to promote her new film -- which I'm very excited for! -- Burlesque. During the nearly twenty-five minute interview, the subject of Cher's son, Chaz's (formerly Chastity) gender transition came up. What ensued was a very open and honest dialogue about gender identity, how Chaz approached the subject with his mother, and how Cher has dealt with the change (click the link above to watch the video).

Almost immediately, LGBTQ bloggers (including one in particular) criticized Cher for her repeated use of female pronouns when referring to Chaz, identifying Chaz as a lesbian, and expressing her difficulty with coming to terms with Chaz's identity.

While it is easy to condemn the performer for repeatedly misspeaking, I found the conversation to be incredibly refreshing, and surprisingly candid for an interview on the Late Show. Letterman, who's been known to make the occasional offensive joke or two, approached the topic of Chaz's gender identity with the utmost of care, giving Cher the freedom to talk about how their relationship evolved over the years and how Chaz came to make this difficult decision. Even when Letterman did include a joke during the conversation, it was at his own expense and not at Cher's or Chaz's.

I think the reason so many are appalled by Cher's language and supposed ignorance is because the transgender community is so isolated and misunderstood already. While gay men and lesbians have made strides in achieving equality, transgender people are often an afterthought -- and the first to be thrown overboard by their supposed allies in a crisis. So many conversations about the transgender community have to start with the very basic "this is the difference between sex and gender," that shifting the public's consciousness around this issue seems especially slow-going.

But here we have a 64-year-old woman, whom many (especially older Americans) identify as the stereotypical gay icon, confessing that even she had difficulty understanding Chaz's identity. After all, she reminds us that she knew Chaz as Chastity for over 30 years; but indicates that their relationship is as strong as ever (and Chaz has apparently told his mother that pronouns aren't as important). To me, I would rather have a parent talk about their experience with a transgender (or gay) child in an intimate and honest manner, rather than recall the experience in a conversation laced with acronyms and scientific jargon. After all, Letterman's audience is primarily made up of Middle Americans; and I'm sure some mother out there found comfort in Cher's words.

What I have been very surprised at is the lack of criticism directed at Bill Maher for ridiculing both Cher and Chaz on his HBO program, something Letterman and Cher brought up. Maher likes to position himself as the liberal Glenn Beck, ridiculing conservatives and religious individuals while bringing down uninformed politicians (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). It makes me incredibly uncomfortable to know that the guy who strives to topple Jon Stewart as the voice of the progressive movement is so ignorant (and hateful?) that he feels justified in ridiculing a significant segment of the liberal base. I'm also curious why I read numerous articles decrying Cher's language choices, but did not hear so much as a peep about Maher's "joke" until I watched her interview with Letterman?

Sure, Cher made a few poor word choices in her interview that she might wish she could change, but she presented to viewers at home an honest account of an understanding mother whose child just happens to be a little different.

A Glimmer of Hope

2010-11-11T15:10:00.001-05:00

On this Veteran's Day, The Washington Post (which has grown increasingly homophobic over the last few months) delivered a bit of good news to opponents of Don't Ask Don't Tell: Initial findings from the Pentagon report indicate "there is minimal risk to lifting gay ban during war." The official, full report is expected to be released on December 1.

This news is, of course, simply a glimmer of hope after weeks of devastating blows delivered to opponents of DADT. Obama's administration has repeatedly contradicted itself by appealing lower courts' rulings that DADT is discriminatory and unconstitutional. DOJ is currently asking the Supreme Court to allow the military to continue enforcing DADT until Congress takes action.

But of course, its better the devil you know right now, as the influx of ultra-conservative Republicans and Democrats into Congress jeopardize any chances of repeal. Especially after the lame duck session ends.

On the heels of the story in the Post, progressive and conservative pundits and bloggers are attempting to predict President Obama's next move, seeing as how the administration claims to have been waiting for this report to come out before really pushing for repeal of DADT. He might finally issue an executive stay on kicking out troops until the Senate acts. Or, he might finally back the Senators currently working without his help to repeal DADT either during the lame duck session or next year. But with all due respect to Senators Lieberman, Gillibrand, and Udall; given the President's and the Senate Democrats' indifference towards their LGBTQ constituents, the Senator I will be most interested in is John McCain.

By now, Senator McCain has earned quite the reputation as a flip-flopper and an outright liar. But despite his frequent boughts of dementia, he is unfortunately one of the most influential members in the Senate. After all, he persuaded moderate Republicans who are against DADT to vote against a repeal earlier this year. A former veteran himself who, occasionally, says he'll listen to the military's recommendation on the issue will most likely have no choice but to concede hypocrisy/ignorance/bigotry if he does not support the repeal after reading the report's findings. A report, I might add, based on the survey data of approximately half a million active and reserve troops and their spouses.

McCain's support or opposition to a repeal post-report will also serve as an indicator of what the next two years might look like. In theory, those Republicans who are anti-gay but pro-big military should listen to the troops before legislating. The same goes for Democrats. But we've just seen a number of candidates elected not because of their intellectual capacity, but because of their extreme emotional reactions when faced with political conundrums. And those already in office have altered their public personas accordingly (just look at all the Democrats who turned their back on health care during campaign season). So despite Middle America's hope to "fix Washington," we might simply be faced with two years of Congressional inaction.

But maybe, just maybe, DADT will finally be repealed in the coming weeks and months. Wouldn't that be a wonderful gift for Veteran's Day?

In the meantime, please support Servicemembers United and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Outrage: Was Gawker Wrong?

2010-10-29T14:06:00.001-04:00

My fellow feminist and liberal bloggers have been in an uproar over a first-person account posted by Gawker detailing an alleged one-night stand between the anonymous author and Delaware Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell. The article ("complete" with pictures) recounts a Halloween tryst between the ultra-conservative, anti-sex O'Donnell, and a young man unaware of who his conquest would go on to become.

The author is indeed incredibly sexist, which leads me (and many others) to question the validity of his story. He paints himself as an almost-victim to "cougar" O'Donnell. He is also clearly a chauvinist, expressing disgust over O'Donnell's unkempt pubic hair, body shape, and outrage over her so-called "virginity."

The fact that Gawker felt comfortable enough to post such a loaded, sexist, and questionable account is very unlike the news-site. Gawker typically backs up its stories with sources; and seeing as how its sister site is Jezebel, it is often very liberal, progressive, and feminist. But Gawker's editors have been very open in their hatred of O'Donnell, posting every embarrassing video and interview they could get their hands on. Much like the media's coverage of Palin, many liberal (and conservative) bloggers have wondered if this mocking of O'Donnell is rooted in sexism.

At the risk of disenfranchising my readers and being labeled anti-feminist or sexist, I can't help but be a little appreciative of a story that undermines O'Donnell's claims of chastity and purity.

I find strong parallels between Gawker's story about O'Donnell and the public outings of conservative politicians as gay. Although heavily debated among LGBTQ activists, I frequently find myself supporting the outing of male politicians who have sex with men, but have a voting record that is overwhelming anti-gay. My feeling is this: If you are voting to oppress and persecute a segment of the population, you lose your right to privacy if it is discovered that you are a part of that population you so vehemently hate in public. And if some resourceful journalist (or sex partner) has proof of your transgressions, then I think it is reasonable that this information is brought to the public's attention.

For example, if we had proof that Sarah Palin once had an abortion, I would want it splashed on the front page of every major newspaper. And you know what? Unlike the outing of closeted gay politicians, such a revelation about Palin might embolden her and make her pro-life arguments stronger (as she would be able to speak from experience). But since she has maintained such an anti-choice stance, I think it would be fair game to reveal any information that might undermine her credibility.

And so, since O'Donnell has repeatedly condemned premarital sex and contraception as immoral, I feel it is fair game to disclose any of her premarital sexual encounters. I would rather have a politician who lays everything out on the table for all to see instead of one who says one thing on a podium and does another thing in the bedroom.

I also think that the publication of such a story not only highlights our country's sexism, but also -- and possibly to a greater extent -- our country's sexphobia. Journalists have frankly become lazy, relying on sexual shock-and-awe stories to bring down any and all politicians, male or female. And while I don't think its right for politicians to advocate against something they practice privately, I also don't think sex itself should be a dealbreaker when it comes to whom we're going to vote for.

The problem with Gawker's account, in particular, is again validity. A few pictures of O'Donnell dressed as a ladybug does not a true story make, and for that, Gawker should be embarrassed. I also agree with the hundreds of others who have used this story to highlight sexism in America and how it hurts potential female candidates. When pundits and writers focus on Hillary Clinton's hair, Palin's body, and Meghan McCain's breasts, they are exhibiting classic sexism. And the fact that the anonymous author of Gawker's article objectifies O'Donnell while at the same time attempting to bring her down exhibits a misogynist mentality that people should be made aware of, and that should be condemned.

However, if this story had been presented by a credible reporter, or the author had given his name and had more substantive evidence of the encounter, then I would have been fine with it and wholeheartedly supported its publication.

When Will it Get Better, Mr. Obama?

2010-10-22T10:46:00.004-04:00

To say I was skeptical when I read about President Obama's It Gets Better video is an understatement. However, I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised when I listened to his three-minute pro-gay, anti-bullying message.

Just like the numerous It Gets Better videos that celebrities and others have released over the past few weeks, the message is simple enough: suicide is not the answer and there is nothing wrong with being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

What I expected was a rehash of the numerous speeches Obama has given to Democrats and LGBT groups over the last three years -- a promise to promote equality and end discrimination. And in some sense, that is probably the underlying message of his testimony. However, the lack of an overtly political agenda was refreshing from a President who has all but stalled on LGBTQ rights in 2010.

I certainly expected a mention of Don't Ask Don't Tell in this video, given the recent outcry and controversy. And perhaps a call to action on election day, urging young voters to keep "pro-LGBTQ" Democrats in power come November 2. But the fact that none of these issues came up was surprising and reassuring, making the President more sympathetic than he has been in the last few months.

There's no denying that the Administration and the Human Rights Campaign are correct in saying Obama is the most pro-gay President ever. We would have never seen George W. Bush or John McCain make such a positive video. And future Republican candidates like Palin and Huckabee will almost certainly encourage the bullying and suicides -- the less queers the better! And while conservatives are quickly distancing themselves from the newly reported LGBTQ youth suicides, most of them continue to take a position of blaming the victim, rather than a homophobic society that promotes intolerance, hatred, and violence.

But while I appreciate Obama's sentiments, at the end of the day actions speak louder than words. Meghan McCain is right in saying that the Obama has built his Presidency on promises to the LGBTQ community, with little to no action. Hate crimes legislation was passed without much support from the Administration until it came time to sign it. Obama has used executive orders to extend select benefits to federal employees and require HHS to allow hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples, but refuses to do the same when it comes to Don't Ask Don't Tell and immigration issues. Cherry-picking which LGBTQ rights you support does not make one a pro-gay President.

The next two weeks will be a very stressful time for Democrats, despite glimmers of hope in select races around the country. But if Republicans sweep the House as many expect, I fear that Obama's promise on things getting better will remain unfulfilled, and in fact, possibly get worse.

EDIT (11:10 AM EDT): I felt that I needed to give additional credit to someone else in Obama's Administration.

Four days prior to the release of Obama's video, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released her own It Gets Better video that I thought was incredibly moving -- and for a while, I thought her video would be the only one coming from the Administration. And I just wanted to make sure that Clinton got credit for stepping to bat first, although both videos are appreciated.

Reconciling Melissa & Joey

2010-10-20T14:33:00.001-04:00

After a couple of weeks of traveling and entertaining out-of-town guests, I finally had a night to myself to sit at home and relax. So what did I do with my newly acquired free time? Why, catch-up on Melissa & Joey of course!

Melissa & Joey is the latest show to be churned out by ABC Family's mediocre production factory. Following their successful TV movie in 2009, the network decided it was about time that Melissa Joan Hart and Joey Lawrence teamed up for a sitcom. What we got is, essentially, a Who's the Boss remake -- right down to a guest appearance by sex-crazed Mona herself, Katherine Helmond.

The series, however, is surprisingly enjoyable. Although the leads are relics of the 1990s zeitgeist, they are charismatic enough to carry the show. Hart, in particular, is still surprisingly gifted when it comes to comic timing, frequently outshining those around her even when she's playing the "straight man."

What I find rather disheartening about the show is the thinly-veiled homophobia that pervades episode after episode. Although only 11 episodes of the 30 episode season (an unheard of number for a sitcom nowadays) have aired, two have relied heavily on gay jokes as the primary source of humor. "Dancing With the Stars of Toledo" (capitalizing on the leads' respective runs on Dancing With the Stars), culminated with the outrageously madcap man-dancing-with-man climax; and "Seoul Man" featured Melissa's niece pretending to be a lesbian to go to the school dance, only to be denied by the administrators.

While the latter storyline sounds like it could be a "very special episode" inspired by Constance McMillen, the "humor" is derived from the audacity of Melissa's niece pretending to be a lesbian just for the sake of saving a buck (a couples' ticket vs. a single's ticket). Although the niece says she's taking a stand for gay rights, no one else seems to think its wrong that a lesbian couple would be denied the right to go to a school dance. In fact, Melissa -- an elected council woman in Toledo -- is only concerned with how it will look if people think her niece is a lesbian. She even tells her niece, "You don't even have gay rights! Not until you experiment in college."

Haha, get it?!

Melissa & Joey intends to hark back to sitcoms of yesteryear. Filmed in front of a live studio audience, the stars and creators have repeatedly said that the show is meant to be lighthearted and carefree, in the vein of Happy Days and, well, Who's the Boss. There's not supposed to be an overtly-political or social agenda as there was in shows like All in the Family or Golden Girls. The thirty-minute format is meant to be pure family escapism -- a market ABC Family has long attempted to corner. Unfortunately, Melissa & Joey's humor is a little behind the curve when compared to other ABC Family shows, or the plethora of "family-oriented" sitcoms over on CBS.

This is not to say that the series is patently offensive or should be boycotted, not at all. But given Melissa Joan Hart's track record (which I've written about before), I find myself wondering if the gay-based humor is somewhat intentional? At a time when ABC Family's parent network, ABC, receives high marks from GLAAD for its abundance of LGBTQ characters, it seems like Melissa & Joey is almost a push-back from right-of-center America. Modern Family features a gay couple and has won multiple Emmys? Yeah, well, Melissa & Joey is going to outright ridicule gay people -- while having no LGBTQ characters, and very few people of color!

I have to give the show some credit though. Eleven episodes in, and I've found myself chuckling more frequently than I have at any other new show that's debuted this year. And it's only season one, so the episodes I mentioned above might just be poor timing, or the series' attempt at finding its rhythm. But let's hope that any future "very special episodes" will treat their subject matter with equal parts humor and respect.

The Gay Dilemma

2010-10-15T11:59:00.001-04:00

Universal Pictures is having a little dilemma with the content of its Ron Howard-directed comedy, The Dilemma.

For a film that had a 65% chance of being really good (Ron Howard, Jennifer Connolly, Winona Ryder, and Queen Latifah certainly offset the Vince Vaughn/Kevin James awfulness), the trailer has caused a minor uproar for its use of the word "gay" in a derogatory manner. Specifically, the original trailer featured Vaughn's character calling electric cars "gay" in an effort to garner laughs. But, on the heels of so many LGBTQ youth suicides, the reference looked insensitive and out of touch. Anderson Cooper and GLAAD criticized Universal for its inclusion of the joke, resulting in the original trailer being pulled and a new one -- minus the line -- released.

GLAAD has asked for the line to be removed from the film altogether, but Ron Howard and Universal have yet to comment.

In an interesting turn of events, GLAAD has actually come under attack from LGBTQ activists and allies for singling out such a minor infraction. "The Hollywood Reporter" noticed that GLAAD refrained from criticizing other movies that were more overtly homophobic -- such as The Hangover, Vaughn's hit Wedding Crashers, and Kevin James' I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. All three films have used the word "faggot" or gay baiting in a comedic context, yet GLAAD remained relatively silent on all three -- even going so far as commending Chuck and Larry for its "tolerance." GLAAD has since pledged to maintain vigilance on all future films -- because, you know, the LGBTQ media advocacy organization should just now start doing these sorts of things.

The always tolerant Vince Vaughn weighed in on the issue yesterday, releasing the statement, "[l]et me add my voice of support to the people outraged by the bullying and persecution of people for their differences, whatever those differences may be. Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. Drawing divided lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly, where does it stop."

I totally believe that comedy should be a safe-haven, of sorts, for discussing controversial issues. I think comedy advances us towards tolerance faster than any other medium or method. However, when I read Vaughn's statement, I interpret it as, "I'm not racist, but..."

How does calling electric cars "gay" promote tolerance? How does throwing around the word "faggot" build bridges? If Vaughn and his frat pack (i.e. Kevin James, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, etc.) truly believed this, shouldn't he feel just as comfortable using the "N-word" in the same "comedic" manner? No, the fact of the matter is, gay jokes (among others) are still socially acceptable in films aimed at straight, 20-something men. If films of this genre were promoting tolerance and embracing differences, as Vaughn claims, one of the "buddies" in these "buddy comedies" would be gay. But seeing as how it's hard enough getting a man of color in even a supporting role, we're probably a long way away from seeing gay lead character.

Hollywood needs to strike a balance in its films as it did when race-based humor became more and more inappropriate (specifically humor based in Black stereotypes -- Asians and Latinos still suffer from overt racism in film). Glee might serve as an example for television (although it has not escaped criticism) -- most of the "gay jokes" come from gay characters, or they are not based in hate. The show is still plagued with problems, but for me, that humor is less offensive because of who is telling the joke or the motivation behind it.

But when I see straight white guys making fun of gay people for no other reason than they're an easy target, it does make me uncomfortable -- especially when the jokes are being spouted by the movie or show's "hero" or lead. I'm sorry Mr. Vaughn, that doesn't promote tolerance -- that promotes hate.

Why Can't More Actors be Like James Franco?

2010-10-06T12:01:00.001-04:00

The internet is buzzing today as the first images of James Franco dressed in drag on the cover of Candy Magazine, the "first fashion magazine ever completely dedicated to celebrating transvestism, transexuality, cross dressing and androgyny, in all its manifestations," appeared online. As a result, the second issue of this niche publication certainly has generated a lot of interest.

News of James Franco emulating Liza Minnelli, Grace Jones, and the late Joan Crawford on the cover of a queer magazine is nothing out of the ordinary for Mr. Franco -- he as established himself has a hipster, Hollywood-outsider that doesn't play by the typical A-list rules. He's played gay repeatedly in films like Milk and Howl. He created quite the stir last year with the release of his self-indulgent, naked-basketball art film. And he appeared on the soap opera, General Hospital, all in the name of "performance art."

And yet, despite his rather unique career path and identity, he continues to be a mainstay of big-budget, Hollywood movies. He appeared in all three Spider-Man films and box office successes, Date Night and Eat Pray Love. And he is currently generating Oscar buzz with his upcoming film, 127 Hours; all the while, coyly deflecting gay rumors and redefining masculinity.

Overall, I'm rather indifferent towards James Franco the actor. He's not my favorite performer, but he's pretty talented and fairly attractive. But he does seem to love hearing himself talk, so he's not someone I would necessarily tune into a talk show for. I guess I consider him to be, almost, the John Mayer of the acting world.

But in spite of his ego, Franco offers us hope for a new generation of leading men that aren't afraid of their gay audience, gay rumors, or a little eyeshadow and lipstick every now and then.

The pink elephant in the room is the presence of openly gay (and closeted) leading actors. While women have made strides in garnering mainstream acceptance and leading roles (granted, most are in the comedic, non-romantic genre), the idea of gay male actors playing straight is the perpetual conundrum, and why openly gay actors like Rupert Everett advise their up-and-coming colleagues to stay in the closet. Much of Everett's, and Hollywood's, argument is that audiences won't suspend disbelief and buy into the idea of a gay male actor playing a heterosexual leading man.

It is perfectly reasonable, however, to expect audiences to suspend disbelief and enjoy a movie about humans transferring their consciousness into 10-foot-tall blue aliens on a faraway world.

Much of the blame for keeping actors in the closet has been placed at the feet of producers and Hollywood executives, but I believe just as much blame can be placed on "straight" male performers. John Travolta and Tom Cruise have spent most of their lives actively denying (and in some cases, suing against) homosexual allegations. Even up-and-coming actors like Zac Efron and Chace Crawford uncomfortably downplay reports of gay love affairs in the hope of scoring the lead in the next Risky Business or Saturday Night Fever.

Just as how much of the blame for the recent gay suicides can be laid at the feet of homophobic Americans, shouldn't overtly homophobic actors share some of the blame for keeping their gay counterparts in the closet?

Fortunately, for every actor scared straight like Zac Efron, we're seeing the emergence of gender-bending and LGBTQ-friendly actors like James Franco. The upcoming Captain America, Chris Evans, has been very open in his support of the gay community. Inception-star, Tom Hardy, made waves when he admitted to having sexual encounters with men (despite denying reports that he is bisexual). Even Harry Potter-himself, Daniel Radcliffe, has postured himself as a gay rights activist, having donated money to and filmed a PSA for The Trevor Project.

The real test will be if and when any one of these LGBTQ-friendly actors actually comes out of the closet -- and I don't know if such an action would be a good thing or a bad thing. Would it lead the public to assume of everyone, "Oh, he supports gay rights so he must be gay;" or will it be accepted and respected, as it has been with Jane Lynch and female actors?

Unfortunately, with no big announcements on the horizon, we'll have to leave it to Franco and his compatriots to lead the charge until the Cruises and Travoltas of the world become relics of the past.

Half of the Nation Mourns

2010-10-01T11:25:00.001-04:00

I wasn't going to comment on these recent events, but things seem to be getting out of hand, and every morning there seems to be a new story about another death.

The media has been inundated with reports of LGBTQ teens committing suicide due to bullying, harassment, and/or embarrassment. The deaths of Seth Walsh, 13; Tyler Wilson, 11; Billy Lucas, 15; Raymond Case, 19; and Tyler Clementi, 18 have been widely covered by the major news networks, but sadly their suicides aren't so shocking to the LGBTQ community.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth are four times more likely to commit suicide than their straight counterparts; and 9 out of 10 LGBTQ teens report being verbally or physically abused by their peers at school.

Interestingly, those organizations that are typically the first to scoff at reports of gay bullying, the Traditional Values Coalition and the Family Research Council, have been mysteriously silent on the recent deaths. Perhaps its the national media choosing to ignore them, or they are just bidding their time until things cool down, but it seems that those groups, politicians, and voters who are indirectly responsible for these deaths through their silence or anti-gay rhetoric are being (or should be) forced to take a good hard look at themselves and what they stand for.

In fact, the only one who has spoken out in favor of these deaths seems to be rapper, 50 Cent (who has yet to release a follow-up statement to his pro-gay suicide tweet). Coupled with the controversy over Michigan's Asst. Attorney General harassing a openly gay college student online, it suddenly looks like homophobes are no longer being given the credibility FOX News and others were readily handing to them as recently as last week.

Being a teenager sucks. Every once in a while, I watch Degrassi or Daria and wonder what it would be like to go through middle and high school all over again. And even if I knew then what I know now, I imagine it would still be pretty miserable.

I attended a small private school in Kansas City, Missouri for nine years, grades 4 through 12. Although I did experience my fair share of teasing and harassment, overall I am thankful for my classmates who would come to my defense or encourage me when the older kids were picking on me. Moving on to the queer oasis that is American University, I am more grateful than ever for the good fortune and privilege that has been bestowed upon me in my life -- privilege that made my coming out process easier than most.

But these deaths prove that my experience keeps me in the minority.

Things need to change. And while conservatives continue to fight legislation that would extend funding to anti-bullying efforts that mention sexual orientation and gender identity, we need to push for an ongoing national dialogue on what the root of bullying is. Because even after the media moves on to its next big story, bullying will still happen and LGBTQ youth will continue to die.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

The Trevor Project - A nonprofit endeavor established to promote acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, and to aid in suicide prevention among that group.

PACER's National Center for Bullying Prevention - Unites, engages, and educates communities nationwide to prevent bullying through creative, relevant, and interactive resources.

GLSEN - The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

The Right to Teach

2010-09-30T05:15:00.002-04:00

Parents, educators, and classrooms are in an uproar this week, all because a public school teacher admitted to being a sex worker for a brief period four years ago.

Melissa Petro, the Bronx school teacher in question, wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post in response to Craigslist's decision to stop listing "adult services." In her essay, Petro says:

"From October 2006 to January 2007 I accepted money in exchange for sexual services I provided to men I met online in what was then called the "erotic services" section of Craigslist.org. No more a "professional" than a person renting a room on the same site is necessarily a professional real estate broker, for me and other women and men like myself, Craigslist at that time provided a simple, familiar forum through which I could do my business with complete anonymity, from the safety and convenience of my own home."

She goes on to clarify that she hasn't traded sex for money in years and that she risks losing her "current job and social standing to speak out for an individual's right" to do so. And in an unfortunate twist, Petro has been put on administrative leave and now risks losing her job as an arts teacher all because she spoke candidly about her past outside of the classroom.

Oddly enough, Petro has long been very outspoken about her past, with her personal essays having appeared in both online and print mediums. So in other words, the New York City Department of Education is looking foolish, having long-touted comprehensive background checks into any and all school personnel hired. So how did they miss this?

The debate over Petro's right to teach has stirred up a range of emotions on the intersections of sex work, education, and teachers' private lives. The crux of the argument to fire Petro is on the basis that teachers serve as role models for students, she was engaged in admitted criminal activity, and that she has made her past public. But Petro has something that makes firing her difficult: tenure. And so Mayor Bloomberg and other public officials have promised to review and revamp the tenuring process for NYC public school teachers, all because Petro chose to discuss her past in the public sphere.

Aside from the usual sexphobia that America likes to exude, the question of legality is supposedly coming into play. If Petro has admitted to partaking in an illegal activity, how can she remain a teacher and serve as a role model to her students? Well, if we punished everyone who once admitted to doing something illegal, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have any teachers left. After all, we've come to a point in our history when our last three Presidents have all admitted to some form of drug use. If illegality were the issue here, then background checks would work and public schools would enforce mandatory, regular drug tests for all teachers -- something I know they don't. No, the only reason that NYC has a problem with Petro is because she sold sex instead of selling drugs.

Writer/Sex Worker Activist Melissa Gira Grant noted earlier today there is a parallel between Petro's case and the 1970s fear (that's slowly reemerging) of gay teachers. Then, it resulted in numerous anti-gay ordinances across the country before a state-wide ban in California was overruled by voters. Could such anti-sex worker bans be put into place in NYC and other jurisdictions? And since Petro is a former-sex worker, when do such regulations begin to infringe on the right to free speech?

The notion of punishing someone for something they once did and spoke freely about online or off is a byproduct of our digital age and something that affects us all, regardless of our relationship to the sex industry. Putting yourself out there -- via Twitter, Facebook, Blogger, whatever -- has become a fact of life for an entire generation; but this case certainly illustrates the age and bias gap that now exists between employer and employee. I have a great deal of sympathy for Petro and this situation honestly makes me afraid for my own job security and career path.

I once applied for a job at an LGBTQ organization that prides itself as being the most liberal of all progressive organizations (they actually told me this in the interviews). It came down to me and one other person and I could feel them dragging their feet on hiring me. After weeks, I finally received a call from the executive director who spent 45 minutes telling me that the nature of my writing would be too much of a liability, and by simply having me on staff, I would jeopardize the future of their advocacy efforts. This was a queer organization. An organization founded on the principles of breaking molds and expanding minds; and I was just too out there for them to accept. I mean c'mon -- all I do is watch a little TV and report on it, so give me a break!

I can't imagine what would happen if I ever applied for a job in the US public school system.

Activist and author, Audacia Ray, made a rare television appearance on the local Fox news channel in NYC to discuss the case with a number of other pundits, serving as the only one speaking out in defense of Petro. Later on her blog, Ray explained that she believes that this "scandal" may turn out to be a good thing, as it forces society to engage in a dialogue they don't normally have, and ask ourselves why sex work is viewed so negatively when compared to other "illegal" or taboo activities.

While I really hope it somehow advances sex worker rights, I also hope that we realize that something from a person's past, or something they do after the clock strikes five, doesn't affect their ability to perform their job or minimize their value as a human being. And I really hope this shift in attitude occurs before Melissa Petro loses her job completely.

EDIT (5:53pm EDT): Thanks Audacia for letting me know that there is already a ban in NY school system against hiring someone who has engaged in "prostitution or pimping."

Why Does the Washington Examiner Hate Planet Earth?

2010-09-28T15:29:00.003-04:00

The Washington Examiner is a free, daily newspaper published by conservative media organization, Clarity Media Group, which is owned by the Christian, homophobic, anti-science billionaire, Philip Anschutz. Anshutz fashions himself as the American Rupert Murdoch, using his media empire to spout puritanical propaganda, and his daily Examiner newspapers -- in DC, Baltimore, and San Francisco -- are some of his more insidious methods to infiltrate the minds of rational-thinking citizens delighted to be handed a free newspaper in the morning. The Examiner was, in fact, one of the few newspapers to endorse John McCain for President in 2008.

Despite its owner, the Washington Examiner has set itself apart from its colleagues, and even its conservative cousin, The Weekly Standard. Sure, it includes the ultra-conservative op-eds Anschutz requires all of his Examiners to carry, but the Washington Examiner has become a bastion of local, DC-based investigative journalism. So as a result, I am able to ignore the anti-feminist rhetoric that adorns the page opposite a compelling story about Metro budget cuts.

Imagine my disappointment, however, when I saw the announcement that the Washington Examiner would be running a week-long "special report" exposing the corruption and manipulation supposedly found in the current green movement.

When the Senate failed to pass a clean energy bill in 2010 (and the ineffective Copenhagen summit), conservatives began pushing back harder against environmental reforms and efforts to fight climate change. Tea Party-endorsed candidates overwhelming don't believe in global warming as a result of human activity, while simultaneously backed financially by oil companies. And so it was only a matter of time before the conservative press took the bait, but it's a little disheartening to see the Washington Examiner grab on to it hook, line, and sinker.

Written primarily by Mark Hemingway, the "special report" highlights new issues with the environmental movement every day this week. On Monday, it "exposed" the EPA as an activist organization bent on ruining the lives of Americans and eliminating jobs. Tuesday focused on the amount of money green advocacy organizations have at their disposal. And the rest of the week promises to highlight how the government is financing their efforts, how they do it, and why California is ground zero for environmental terrorism.

The most troubling aspect about this backwards rhetoric is the fact that you can find corruption, power, and misuse of funds in every political movement that has ever marched on Washington. LGBTQ rights, feminism, civil rights, public health rallies -- all supposedly noble movements have their own dirty laundry, and I would be surprised if they weren't subsequently covered in the Examiner in future "special reports." But this phenomenon isn't exclusive to the left. Does the Washington Examiner actually expect us to believe that the NRA, Christianity, Big Oil, tobacco companies, and pharmaceutical companies are all without faults? The Washington Post featured an article over the weekend that explored the in-fighting happening in tea party movement -- a story I doubt the Examiner would ever cover.

OK, so the conservative Examiner newspaper isn't airing the dirty laundry of the conservative movements, no big surprise. But let's dig a bit deeper and look at the articles that have so far populated this "special report." Monday's led with the headline, "Big Green regulations suffocate jobs, economic growth," a song conservatives like to sing time and time again. The Examiner's political opposite, The Huffington Post, makes the case for the contrary -- that combating climate change will actually create jobs, as seen in the federal stimulus of 2009 (which invested billions in clean energy initiatives).

The same article in the Examiner also tries to expose the EPA as an activist organization operating outside of the law and enforcing policies based on faulty science that hurts Americans. However, for Hemingway to achieve this, he has to look back nearly fifty years to uncover anything that remotely resembles a trend or statistic; not to mention that our knowledge of the environment and our impact on it has increased exponentially since 1960. He also fails to mention that a recent poll found that 54% of Americans have faith in the EPA's actions, and a full 60% believe the government should regulate greenhouse gases.

Tuesday's report focused on donations to Democratic candidates from environmental groups, expanding on Monday's effort to "expose" the amount of money green advocacy groups have at their disposal. Again, what the Examiner fails to point out is how during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Democrats stopped accepting, and in some cases returned, donations from lobbyists and Republicans didn't. Or, how Republican candidates (especially tea party-backed candidates) have received numerous, large donations in 2010 from Wall Street and big business (as reported by right-of-center newspaper, Politico). If the crux of the Washington Examiner's argument against climate and energy reform is that its corrupt and hurts the American people, wouldn't it suit them to highlight other corrupt political activities that are currently and directly hindering economic recovery?

And if Americans should feel threatened by energy reform, why are so many of them donating to pro-environment groups? After all, most of the $8.2 billion Hemingway touts as conservation groups' revenue comes from individual and private donations, not from multi-national corporations that would be directly affected by clean energy legislation and regulation.

At the end of the day, I just don't see the point of this "special report." Is the Washington Examiner so anti-environment that they want to hinder any and all conservation and clean energy efforts? Yes, like every other political movement, the green movement has its flaws, but why go out of your way to hinder those people who choose to live more sustainably and reduce their carbon footprint? Perhaps it has something to do with Mr. Anschutz's stake in petroleum and drilling companies, but in this post-BP disaster era, I hope not.

Mark Hemingway and his colleagues would have come off as real journalists if their EPA-bashing was balanced with stories of successful grassroots efforts promoting energy reform outside of regulatory action. But instead, they promise to uncover the dirty secrets behind the green movement in California. Huh, and just as California voters are being asked to vote on a Prop 23, a Texas oil-backed bill which would null all of California's clean energy and emission standards (California residents: Vote No on Prop 23!). And sadly, Washingtonians finally see the Examiner for what it truly is: a mouthpiece of the conservative right that wishes to see the wealthy get wealthier, and wants progressiveness to become a thing of the past.

Goodbye Washington Examiner, it was pretty good while it lasted.

Easy A

2010-09-21T13:52:00.001-04:00

It seems like every decade has that one tongue-in-check, teenage girl comedy that leaves its mark on pop culture, appealing to both teenagers and adults alike and providing us with a lexicon of new movie quotes. For the 1980s, it was Heathers. The 1990s: Clueless. The 00s: Mean Girls. And now as 2010 draws to a close, we see Easy A attempting to establish itself as this decade's generation-defining teen comedy.

Easy A had been on my must-see list all summer, ever since I first saw the trailer and learned of the stellar cast. In addition to the break-out lead, Emma Stone, the film boasts Thomas Hayden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Patricia Clarkson, Stanley Tucci, Malcolm McDowell, and Amanda Bynes. With so many talented people on board, I thought this movie must be good. So I ventured to the theater on opening day to witness what I hoped would be the second coming of smart, female-centric teen comedies.

Surprisingly and thankfully, Easy A did not disappoint.

While it may not be able to compete with the likes of Heathers or Clueless (or even cult comedy, Jawbreaker), Easy A emerges as a smart counterpart to the world of teenage cinema that has become riddled with mindless spoofs and torture porn.

The plot is fairly straight-forward and summed up nicely in the trailers: Olive (Stone) develops a reputation as a slut after pretending to have sex with her gay friend at a party. Instead of denying the rumors, she plays into them, wearing revealing outfits embroidered with a scarlet "A." Soon, she discovers that she's open for business, pretending to be the sex partner for dozens of lonely high school boys. Unfortunately, her reputation escapes her control and everyone involved must deal with the consequences.

Most comedies have a problem with showcasing the funniest/only funny lines of the movie in the trailer, and I was concerned that Easy A would fall into this trap. Fortunately, it doesn't and Emma Stone adeptly carries a film for which she is in practically every scene. Surrounded by the supporting players listed above, Stone establishes herself as being able to match wits with actors over twice her age without coming off as inauthentic or condescending.

Easy A's predecessors have one thing that Easy A lacks, and that is originality. Even Clueless, which was loosely based on Jane Austen's Emma, was a breath of fresh air and set the tone for teen comedies throughout the 90s. Easy A, however, relies very heavily on Mean Girls (and to a lesser extent, Saved!), right down to the redhead lead, hip parents, and outsider storyline. But you know what? This isn't really a bad thing. I loved Mean Girls, and I enjoyed Easy A almost as much as I enjoyed the Lindsay Lohan masterpiece. And at the end of the day, why does a teen comedy need to change the world? Let's hope Stone can escape Lohan's fate, though.

Something I personally picked up on in Easy A that diverged from Mean Girls is the pervasive pejorative attitude towards teenage girls and sexuality. Although "based on" the book Queen Bees and Wannabes, Mean Girls is clearly Tina Fey's attempt to empower young women, discourage bullying, and encourage originality. I certainly remember Fey's almost-preachy speech on why teenage girls shouldn't call each other "bitch," "slut," or "whore." In Easy A's world, however, that message was clearly not adopted, and the sexuality-based insults are unrelenting. Olive even calls out her friend for repeatedly calling her a "bitch," only to have the friend switch to an equally offensive slur. And I understand people frequently talk like this in real life, but having it so prevalent in a film just rubbed me the wrong way.

Fortunately, Easy A doesn't view sex so despicably. Olive isn't really a slut, so Amanda Bynes' abstinence brigade comes off as intolerant and hypocritical. On the flip side, the ones "punished" for having sex are the ones doing so outside of their committed, monogamous relationships. So while the film does nothing to quell sexuality-based derogatory language, it takes more of a middle ground when it comes to teens and sexual activity.

It's quite possible that the 2010s will see a better, more forward-thinking teen comedy to come out of it, but for now, I am happy to settle for Easy A. And I'm even happier to have Emma Stone become a film fixture. Let's hope Stone can escape Alicia Silverstone's fate, though.

On a final note, I want to dedicate this post to Amanda Bynes, aka @chicky. She left the Twitterverse far too soon, and I hope her retirement from acting is truly as short lived as she promises it to be.

Rally to Keep Sanity Alive

2010-09-17T11:13:00.001-04:00

It has finally happened.

Only weeks after Glenn Beck's "non-political" Restoring Honor rally on the National Mall, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert announced their own marches on Washington: Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" and Colbert's "March to Keep Fear Alive." Both will occur on the National Mall on Saturday, October 30, 2010.

Aside from the date and location, not much is known about what these rallies will consist of -- and some commentators are even speculating that these so-called marches are actually hoaxes. But since airing last night, over 23,000 people have already RSVP'd to Stewart's rally on Facebook. And I imagine that come October 30th, the two rallies will become one under two banners.

While Colbert's announcement was laced with his unique brand of tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-conservatism, Stewart's call to "Take it Down a Notch for America" will likely emerge as the prevailing theme of the rally. Rather than framing this is a liberal, pro-Obama event, Stewart and company have devised a way to truly counter Beck's and Palin's rallying cries: a call on moderates, not extremists, to come together as the true voice of America.

Attendance will be the true test of Stewart's and Colbert's power and influence -- and if even half or a quarter of those who RSVP on Facebook show-up, it could still be considered a success. But as Stewart noted in his announcement, moderates who don't typically march on Washington or equate politicians with Hitler are difficult to rile up. Will many of Stewart's more middle-of-the-road viewers even show up, or will the event be dominated by progressive activists? Probably the latter. But I'm sure Stewart and Colbert realize this, otherwise they wouldn't have even bothered to devise such an imaginative counter-rally.

I certainly plan to attend the rally (I live in DC, after all), but I'm not quite sure what I want to see there. Will it become a Lilith Fair/Woodstock-like political concert? Or a line-up of comedians? I suppose that, ideally, I would like Stewart and Colbert to mirror Beck's rally as closely as possible. Avoid progressive "extremists" like GaGa and Nancy Pelosi, and instead call on rational, thoughtful, and intelligent speakers; people like Rachel Maddow and Meaghan McCain. Get speakers who don't call for one religion to dominate all others, but those figureheads who truly believe in Freedom of Religion. I think that strategy will most appeal to those moderates Stewart is calling on, while providing the marches with legitimacy.

But let's just make sure we don't lose our civility or sense of humor -- both of which Stewart typically maintains.

AIDS Walk Washington

2010-09-14T10:14:00.002-04:00

On Saturday, October 2, 2010, I have registered to run (yes, run) in Washington, DC's AIDS Walk, benefiting the Whitman-Walker Clinic. I was unable to attend last year, but 2010 will be my fifth time to participate.

Although I try not to use this site for solicitations, if you have the financial ability to support a good cause, please support me and WWC with a donation. Or, if you will be in the DC area on October 2nd, sign up to participate!

Washington, DC has one of the highest HIV-infection rates in the country, with as many as 1 in 20 adults testing HIV-positive. Founded in 1978, Whitman-Walker Clinic is a non-profit health clinic that provides comprehensive services to the DC-Metro area, with specific emphasis on the HIV-positive and LGBTQ communities.

And if that wasn't enough to make you want to donate/sign-up: former-Wonder Woman, Lynda Carter, is the grand marshal!

Thank you in advance and I hope to see you there!

Curiosity Killed the Cat

2010-09-13T12:46:00.002-04:00

Last month, I participated in SpeakeasyDC's open mic night. The theme for August was, "Curiosity Killed the Cat: Stories about snooping and meddling;" and my tale involved my misguided attempts at emulating my favorite spies and sleuths.

The folks over at SpeakeasyDC were nice enough to record the performance, so I wanted to share it with all of you. And thanks again to everyone who came out for it!

Eric J. tells true story on SpeakeasyDC stage 8/10/10 from SpeakeasyDC on Vimeo.

This is What a Republican Feminist Looks Like

2010-09-09T17:57:00.001-04:00

Meghan McCain is on her book tour right now, jumping between MSNBC and FOX News to discuss her memoir, Dirty Sexy Politics. Interviewers love rehashing McCain's opinion of Sarah Palin, her famous father (John McCain), and her support for gay marriage.

Several years into her career as potential political leader and pundit, journalists on both sides of the aisle remain astounded to be talking to a moderate Republican. In fact, in all of the recent interviews I have seen with her, McCain has been required to explain how she reconciles the phrase "moderate Republican," as though Meghan has recently landed on Earth and humans are desperately trying to understand the language she speaks.

I have long been a semi-fan of Meghan McCain. Although it is, admittedly, hard for me to trust someone who identifies with the Republican Party, her outspoken criticisms of her party -- and politics in general -- is incredibly refreshing in a time when bipartisanship no longer exists. I am waiting for the day for McCain to step out of her father's shadow (as well as Palin's) and come into her own as a politician or pundit (whichever she chooses). Even if she and I continue to differ on economics, its very heartening to hear a Republican openly support same-sex marriage, comprehensive sex education in schools, stem-cell research, and believes that climate change cannot be solved with more drilling.

Besides financial matters, the issue that McCain and I differ most on is, of course, abortion. But despite her anti-choice stance, she rationally and realistically compensates for it with her full support of contraception and sex education. And it is this reason, in addition with others, that I have no problem recognizing or acknowledging her as a feminist.

Sarah Palin has spent the last few months "reclaiming" the word "feminist" as her own; decrying liberal feminists, like myself, who feel that she is misappropriating the term. While Palin has attempted to convince the world that the only reason she's not considered a feminist is because of her anti-choice position, I and many others beg to differ.

As I have long said, my beef with Palin's identification as a feminist isn't simply because she's anti-choice, it's because she has actively gone out of her way to oppress those who don't fit her preconceived mold of what an American looks like. Despite the tea party's so-called "live and let live" attitude, I have no doubt that President Palin would push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, outlaw comprehensive sex education in schools, and rally to overturn the civil rights act (like her counterpart, Rand Paul, has).

How can someone be a feminist if she is spending so much time only looking out for herself?

Ann Coulter is another one who doesn't quite fit the conservative feminist mold. Sure, she's appearing at a gay Republican event, but she also makes some incredibly Islamophobic remarks on a daily basis. Simply being a successful and powerful woman does not make you a feminist. If we applied Palin's simplistic logic to everything, then we would have to consider Larry Craig as one of the most influential LGBTQ advocates of all time.

Meghan McCain has postured herself as the anti-Palin and anti-Coulter, something the Republican Party, and frankly feminism, needs. Unfortunately, aside from her articles for The Daily Beast, she seems to have difficulty establishing herself as someone other than simply John McCain's daughter. Perhaps that's because Meghan hasn't quite figured out what she wants to do yet, or how she wants to change the world. But when she does decide, I for one will be interested in hearing it.

What's Wrong with Katy Perry?

2010-09-02T14:12:00.000-04:00

Entertainment Weekly is one of my long-term sources for the latest Hollywood news, gossip, and commentary. Although no longer as up-to-date as some of the pop culture blogs out there, the writers and critics provide decent-enough, relatable reviews of everything to do with movies, music, and television.

An EW article written by music blogger, Simon Vozick-Levinson, that has been making the rounds today is an analysis of the underwhelming performance of Katy Perry's new album, Teenage Dream. To sum up, Perry's sophomore effort only sold 192,000 copies in the US in its first week and is now considered a flop (by comparison, Kylie Minogue's new album, Aphrodite, sold 20,000 copies in the US in its first week and is considered her biggest hit since 2001's Fever). Vozick-Levinson attributes this to the fact the Perry's songs are so popular that she became overexposed -- even though "California Gurls" and "Teenage Dream" remain in the Billboard top ten.

I must respectfully disagree with his assessment.

Although I do write a fair bit of entries about music, I am not trained in music, nor am I musical, nor do I have a firm understanding of the music industry. I am just a fan, nothing more. But I believe Vozick-Levison has failed to realize one major problem: No one likes Katy Perry.

I'm not talking about Katy Perry the singer/"writer" of infectious pop songs, I'm talking about Katy Perry the person. I have never hidden my loathing of Katy Perry, but my personal feelings aside, sit back and just think about it for a minute: when is the last time you met an ardent Katy Perry fan? Someone who not only sings along with her music, but also respects her "talent" or idolizes her style? Most of the people I encounter, including myself, say something like, "I really like her songs, I just wish someone else sang them."

Vozick-Levinson compare's Perry's sales with other mainstream acts like Eminem and Usher who overwhelmingly outsold her in their respective first weeks. However, despite their ubiquity, he does not classify either performer as overexposed. The artists he compares to Perry in terms of situation are Rihanna and Ke$ha, labeling them all as "singles artists" -- an artist only known for their singles and not their albums. (I will ignore the fact that the author only uses male artists when describing "successful" musicians, and female artists when describing "failures")

Actually, Vozick-Levison found a perfect parallel when bringing Ke$ha into the mix. Like Perry, Ke$ha has seen nearly every one of her singles become a top ten hit; but also failed to sell full-length albums. However, I think we can extend that comparison and note that people also don't really like Ke$ha the person. Most music reviewers decry her singing abilities, but she has also failed to establish any sort of stable fanbase. Personally, I liked her first song "Tik Tok," but did not give her another thought until she released "Take It Off" only a few weeks ago.

Comparing Rihanna to either of these females is, I think, a little misguided. Rihanna had extenuating circumstances that complicated her album's release (i.e. Chris Brown), in conjunction with releasing music that did not fit her dance-pop formula we had grown to love. As a result, Rihanna is releasing a pure dance-pop album in November, only a year after releasing her last effort, Rated R.

As further evidence, I want to turn to my old standby, Lady GaGa. Perry had the misfortune of launching her career alongside this alien pop starlet who changed the face of the pop music as we know it. While Perry held her own with "I Kissed a Girl" and "Hot N Cold," GaGa inspired millions with her outspoken attitude, odd fashion sense, and shock-and-awe sensibility. While Perry's One of the Boys went on to go platinum, GaGa's The Fame sold three million in the US alone. And like Perry, all of GaGa's songs have gone Top Ten and inspired countless YouTube parodies, so what's the difference? Why didn't GaGa suffer the same fate as Perry?

It's because GaGa has that likability and presence that artists like Perry and Ke$ha simply don't have. It's the same reason Beyonce sells 300,000 copies of an album in one week; or why every single one of Britney Spears' albums has gone at least platinum no matter how many times she is institutionalized (ditto for Eminem). There's just something about them that keeps us coming back, and I personally don't believe that its something Perry can obtain, no matter how frequently her songs get stuck in our collective consciousness.

Vozick-Levinson does note that being a "singles only" artist isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means you're not making as much money, especially when you share writing and producing credits. And underwhelming first-week sales do not signal the end for Katy Perry -- her album could go on to have legs and stick around in the top ten for weeks (like The Fame or The Fame Monster). But I don't know if Perry will ever be one of those artists to sell out arenas.

When Gender Identity Goes Mainstream

2010-09-01T11:18:00.001-04:00

Another week, another tabloid digging up dirt on the Jolie-Pitt family.

It's no secret that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are queen and king of the paparazzi. Even when Britney and Lindsay threaten their reign, the couple always manages to come back with a vengeance (even if they claim to be uninterested in the media). It's easy when you view the developing countries of the world as giant shopping malls full of babies just waiting to be snatched up at a decent price.

Life & Style magazine, that bastion of hard-hitting journalism, took a break from it's 24-hour Lohan coverage to drudge up a, frankly passe, news story about the Jolie-Pitts: namely, the gender identity of their biologically female child, Shiloh.

I, myself, am partial to Star Magazine, but I'll take what I can get in a pinch.

For months, the paparazzi have been highlighting the supposed family turmoil over Shiloh's gender identity and expression. Although born female, Brangelina have clearly allowed Shiloh to adopt characteristics that are typically associated with male-bodied individuals -- from wearing pants (OMFG!) to maintaining a short, un-ladylike haircut, Shiloh has been allowed to choose the mode of gender expression that suits her best. Angelina even told Vanity Fair that Shiloh is drawn to more masculine expressions of gender, and as a result, has been given the freedom to adopt these traits.

While it is a little too early to know if Shiloh genuinely feels like a boy more than a little girl (she is only 4 years old, after all), or if she's just a tomboy; I'm glad that we have magazines like Life & Style to act as the moral compass of parenting, and make Shiloh feel even more ostracized than she already does by having A-list parents.

Interestingly, Life & Style was reprimanded in March by LGBTQ news-magazine, The Advocate, and GLAAD for its "coverage" of the supposed family drama. Then, the tabloid painted Shiloh's masculine traits as harmful and an indicator of bad parenting (quoting anti-gay/anti-feminist group, Focus on the Family); and while the magazine apologized, this week's cover shows that the editors didn't take the message to heart. They are also furthering parental gender stereotypes by painting Brad as the one repulsed by any deviation of stereotypical gender traits.

As someone who played with both action figures and Barbies, and dressed as both Batman and Catwoman (mainly Catwoman), I don't find anything wrong with Shiloh being given the freedom to actually choose how she wants to express herself. Had my parents insisted I only played sports or only had male friends as a child, I would have been miserable. The only tragedy with Shiloh is that she has the misfortune of having to discover herself under the ever-present watch of the media.

The fact that Life & Style and its counterparts are so enamored with Shiloh's gender expression highlights our society's desperate need to cling to preconceived gender stereotypes. Transgendered celebrities, like Chaz Bono, Candis Cayne, and Alexis Arquette, are less celebrated for any talent they have, and more highlighted as curiosities -- a modern-day, paparazzi-driven freak show.

And while I think there are many parenting techniques to critique Brangelina for, giving Shiloh the freedom to express herself is not one of them. Let's just hope the tabloids don't get the best of her.

Fuck You PTC

2010-08-26T11:02:00.002-04:00

Cee Lo Green, of Gnarls Barkley fame, caused quite a stir a couple of days ago with the release of his new single, "Fuck You!" In less than a week, the official and unofficial versions of the song have received nearly 3 million hits on YouTube.

I adore this song! Much like Lily Allen's track of the same name (her's, a tribute to George W. Bush), the message is so simple and perfectly expresses discontent with two little words. And with the backing Motown rhythm and simplistic video, Cee Lo's song is just too infectious to dislike.

Unfortunately, some American parents aren't too crazy about the song.

You see, a couple of weeks ago the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) policies on indecency and obscenity are too vague and violate the first amendment. Additionally, for accidental indecency, like Janet Jackson's nipplegate, they can't hold the network accountable since it technically isn't the network's fault. Leaders over at the FCC are still deciding if they are going to appeal the ruling (I hope not), and its quite possible that the FCC could simply come up with more well-defined, clearer definitions of obscenity to get around the Court's ruling.

The Parents Television Council (which apparently has expanded its purview into music) has declared this song a sign of cultural Armageddon in light of the Court's ruling. With its poppy melody and catchy lyrics, the PTC fears the song will eventually hit the radio (and television) airwaves, exposing kids to a word they would have never heard before. And with the US Court of Appeals having effectively neutered the FCC, how will we protect the children? Won't someone please think of the children?!?

I suppose I understand the PTC's and the Concerned Women for America's concerns to some extent, but I don't think this song, or the Court's ruling, is indicative of the collapse of society (we have gay marriage to thank for that). In fact, Cee Lo has already told MTV that he's working on a "clean" single version entitled "Forget You" to come out in December. So see? Even without threat of the FCC, artists are still self-censoring out of habit and preexisting fear. And while I bet ABC, FOX, and CBS might begin testing the FCC's power and limits, I'm sure the shift to hardcore pornography will be so gradual that the PTC won't even notice.

But for now, let's just revel in this pop song before "concerned parents" find some way to ruin it.

EDIT (3:48 pm EDT): The FCC just announced that they will be appealing the ruling. I suppose I should retitle this entry...

Restoring Honor

2010-08-25T12:11:00.001-04:00

This Saturday, Washington, DC will finally get its chance to make the history books.

After 200 years of flying below the radar, the nation's capital will have its turn in the spotlight as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are joined by an estimated 300,000 pale-skinned, socks-and-sandals wearing followers, all wanting to Restore Honor to America.

Frequent whiner, Glenn Beck, decided that the best way to honor the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech was to gather the whitest group of Americans he could find, stand on the very steps that King stood on, and deliver what will no doubt be a monumental call to arms, umm, I mean, action. And if Palin and Beck weren't enough to draw you in, Beck has recruited King's ultra-conservative niece, Alveda King, to speak before the crowd. No telling if Alveda will once again compare gay marriage to genocide, but one can only hope.

In response to the "Restoring Honor" rally, Rev. Al Sharpton and friends are holding their own "Reclaim the Dream Rally," which will include a march from Dunbar High School to the MLK Memorial, located only blocks away from the Lincoln Memorial where Beck's followers will be gathering.

In light of Sarah Palin's recent defense of Dr. Laura's racism, ongoing attack on feminism, and overall homophobic outlook on life, it goes without saying that this rally cannot escape the hateful and racist undertones that these speakers bring with them -- despite both Beck's and the tea partiers' claims that they love everyone. As organizers of the "Reclaim the Dream Rally" have said, this is essentially a slap in the face to the millions who have given their lives to the fight for civil rights and social justice. And while the attendees have every right to exercise their freedom of speech, they cannot ignore the hypocritical stances they have taken towards LGBTQ people, pro-choice individuals, and Muslims who are also trying to stand up for what they believe in.

Once again, despite Beck's tears and Palin's cries, the message this rally is sending is: Freedom of Speech only for those who agree with us. I will be curious to see what happens if activists from both rallies clash on the National Mall.

All week, I have been having an internal debate with myself. After sleeping through the National Organization for Marriage's anti-gay marriage rally two weeks ago, my curiosity is getting the best of me and I can't help by want to witness the shitshow that is surely going to take place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. And while I'm definitely not the protester-type (carrying signs is tiring), I would enjoy being casual observer documenting the experience.

At the same time, do I really want to be another body in the crowd? Especially with a counter-protest going on blocks away, I don't want to be misconstrued as one of Emperor Beck's supporters. But c'mon, we all know which rally is going to the most entertaining, and its no the one that is being promoted by Washington Peace Center. Perhaps I will end up splitting my time between the two -- that certainly would provide for an interesting sociological comparison.

I'll keep you updated.

How to Eat Pray Love

2010-08-16T13:06:00.001-04:00

There are two things I truly love in life: Samantha Brown and Under the Tuscan Sun.

Samantha Brown is host of many of the travel shows over on the Travel Channel. Long before Anthony Bourdain gained notoriety for his food adventures on the same network, Sam was taking us on tours through great hotels, on great cruises, and across the country and around the world. She remains the only female host on the Travel Channel to receive top billing on her shows (although Rachel Ray has a new travel show debuting sometime soon); and after more than 10 years with the network, she's still as funny and lovely as she was in 1999.

Although often mocked, Under the Tuscan Sun is one of my favorite movies. I forget when I first saw it, but I immediately fell in love with the film and Diane Lane. I'm not a huge fan of romantic comedies, but that's exactly what attracted me to this film: it's not your typical romantic comedy. In fact, it really can't be categorized as such at all. Sure, Lane is trying desperately to recover from a divorce and find a new relationship, but its more about learning to love yourself than finding romance. Whenever I'm feeling down or bad about myself, I put in the DVD and instantly feel better.

I did read the book, but its absolutely nothing like the film and did not strike a chord with me, but it does have its own merits.

So what happens if you mix Samantha's travel guides with Under the Tuscan Sun's narrative? You get the much less enjoyable, Eat Pray Love.

All summer long I have been looking forward to Eat Pray Love. I never read the memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, nor am I in love with Julia Roberts; but for some reason, I counted down the days until it opened. I suppose I was excited because it looked so similar to Under the Tuscan Sun that I was hoping it would recreate that movie's magic for me. And I am dying to visit Italy, India, and Bali and I enjoy living vicariously through Samantha Brown. So I thought, "Wow, this movie looks perfect for me! I must see it!"

Eat Pray Love is not a bad movie, it's just not a very good movie either. Most noticeably, it is way too long! Running well over two hours, I found myself waiting for her to get to Bali because I knew it meant the end was near.

Unfortunately, and not to the fault of the filmmakers really, the release of Sun only several years ago made the entire Italy sequence seem somewhat hackneyed. At one point my friend Amy turned to me and remarked, "And there's Diane Lane!" The comparisons were unmistakable and Hollywood needs to put to bed the American-in-Italy storyline for at least a decade.

Julia Roberts is actually incredibly charming here, and for a very long time this doesn't feel like the typical "Julia Roberts movie." But after an hour and half of traveling and soul searching, she gets to Bali and this is where the film diverges the most from Sun: it becomes a stereotypical romance.

This is of course what really did happen to Elizabeth Gilbert, and we can't fault her for that. But the joy of Sun is that the film never devolves into a "woman finding comfort in the arms of a man" film. In fact, it isn't until the last scene that we're led to believe that Lane finds romance again. But the last third of Eat Pray Love is nothing but parting glances, over the top romantic gestures, and scenes of running along the beach towards your true love. It was almost disappointing that the finale of Roberts' year of traveling was eerily reminiscent of the finale of Pretty Woman.

Granted, it's very hard to explore spirituality on film without coming off as preachy or hokey (see The X-Files: I Want to Believe), so I suppose I can forgive writer/director Ryan Murphy for focusing on love and romance when he adapted the memoir. But in doing so, and without having read the book, I felt like the film was missing its soul. And without it, I would really almost prefer watching Samantha Brown take me to these same places from the comfort of my home.

Adam Enrolls at Degrassi

2010-08-12T16:36:00.000-04:00

My not-so-secret guilty pleasure, Degrassi: The Next Generation, debuted its transgender storyline last night to much fanfare.

The plot was almost inevitable, seeing as how Toronto-based Degrassi has spent the last ten years tackling every dramatic teen moment the writers could come up with: pregnancy, adoption, abortion, drugs, alcoholism, cancer, murder, sexually transmitted infections, coming out as gay or lesbian, body image issues, date rape, statutory rape, hate crimes, and sex work, just to name a few. And this doesn't include the day-to-day activities that involve the frequent beginning and ending of various couplings, relationships, and friendships.

For their transgender storyline, Degrassi writers spent a great deal of time consulting with members of the transgender community, working with GLAAD, and watching personal YouTube videos posted by trans teens. The result is Adam Torres, a female-to-male (FTM) identified sophomore and recent-transfer to Degrassi Community School; as well as younger brother of the starting quarterback, Drew.

Although Adam has been around since the season ten premiere in July, last night's episode was the first to explore Adam's gender identity. Prior to then, the writers treated him as just one of the guys, with nothing particularly special (or frankly, interesting) about him -- aside from the fact that Adam is played by Canadian actress, Jordan Todosey, as evidenced in the opening credits.

Last night's episode follows Adam as he hits on a girl in school and is soon discovered to have been born biologically female. And although he is bullied and physically threatened at school, he finds allies in his friends and his brother whom accept him. The conclusion of this two-part episode airs tonight on TeenNick.

Degrassi writers (and GLAAD) have been quick to heap praise upon themselves for this new story arc. For American audiences -- especially those made up primarily of teenagers (and my friend Amy and me) -- there aren't many television shows or movies that have actively included transgender characters. The show's producers are also quick to point out that they have not relegated LGB characters to "very special episodes," instead making them active members of the cast who stay with us for years (i.e. Paige, Marco, and Riley). And this will likely be the case with Adam.

What the writers are not so good at handling, however, are ongoing hot-button issues. Characters' love lives are one thing, but generally the writers do devote "very special episodes" to issue-of-the-week plotlines. A character's eating disorder often comes and goes within the 22-minute time frame. A teen mother gives her baby up for adoption and it is never mentioned again. While this isn't universal of the show (Paige's and Darcy's respective date rape storylines were each handled timely and realistically), I fear that the "transgender" part of Adam will fall by the wayside.

But with this particular storyline, maybe that's not a bad thing. After all, Adam used a few minutes last night to explain to his friends (and us, the audience) what transgender means; beyond that, why can't Adam go on to live his life as any other teenage boy? And in theory, the character could go through high school without ever taking hormones or surgically altering his appearance. If someone ever questions Adam why not, it was clearly established last night that Adam's mom is less than enthusiastic about her son's situation. And it would solve one glaringly obvious problem: Jordan Todosey does not identify as transgender nor has she indicated she is transitioning.

Degrassi: The Next Generation airs on TeenNick, every weeknight at 9pm ET.

Murphy Aniston

2010-08-11T13:42:00.002-04:00

Last night, Vice President Dan Quayle reprimanded Candice Bergen and the producers of her hit show, Murphy Brown, for portraying a single woman choosing to have a baby on her own and "minimizing the importance of fathers."

Oh, oops! I'm sorry, I had a flashback to 1992 for a second.

What really happened last night was Bill O'Reilly reprimanding Jennifer Aniston for "encouraging" women to have children on their own, calling her words "destructive to our society." The FOX News commentators joining him also scolded Aniston, saying that young people would be unable to distinguish between what might be OK for a 41-year-old woman and not necessarily for themselves.

Wow, nearly twenty years later and conservatives are still clinging to these outdated notions about "family values," while offering no legitimate solutions to fix what they're identifying as a societal problem.

So here's how this came about: Jennifer Aniston is currently out promoting her new movie, The Switch, which sounds suspiciously similar to Jennifer Lopez's latest flop, The Back-Up Plan. While doing her press tour she was quoted as saying, "Women are realizing more and more that they don't have to settle with a man just to have a child." Her film is about a middle-aged woman turning to artificial insemination to conceive a child.

Bill O'Reilly took this to mean that Aniston is calling for the eradication of fathers and the promotion of teen pregnancy.

OK, first I will give O'Reilly and his two stooges a little credit: fatherhood is under-emphasized in our society. I don't agree with the fact that the court system typically and automatically awards primary custody to biological mothers in divorce settlements, often regardless of their involvement or competency. And he also is careful to acknowledge the millions of very good single mothers currently living in America.

However, to suggest that Aniston is promoting single-motherhood as the most acceptable alternative is absolutely ridiculous. O'Reilly also not-so-subtly demeans same-sex parents and single parents raising foster kids in the same breath that he knocks Aniston.

This is not to suggest that Aniston is completely without fault. Like most celebrity single-parents (and coupled parents), they often fail to publicly acknowledge the amount of class privilege they have that facilitates their raising of a child. Sandra Bullock, Meg Ryan, and Sheryl Crow have all adopted babies and undertaken the enormous task of raising them; but they also have millions of dollars at their disposal. If there is anything to fault celebrity parents on, it is this lack of appreciation for their unique situation; not for encouraging women to look towards alternatives when it comes to having a child.

In reflecting on both former-VP Quayle's and O'Reilly's comments, I'm struck by the fact that they each believe teenage girls treat Jennifer Aniston and Murphy Brown as role models. Do they honestly believe that twelve-year-old girls (and boys) are looking towards middle-aged white women as sources of inspiration? While they might be somewhere on their radar, I imagine that Beyonce, Lady GaGa, Rihanna, and unfortunately, the cast of Jersey Shore have more of a pull on how young girls will act in the future. The level of disrespect O'Reilly and his commentators show young people -- believing they don't have the mental capabilities to differentiate between celebrity and reality -- is frustratingly appalling.

Conservatives need to stop believing that America has somehow strayed from the path of righteousness and start accepting the reality. We were never on the path to begin with and society isn't suddenly going to morph into this heteronormative, 2.5-children fantasyland. Let's work with what we've got and do our best to improve the situation at hand without aspiring to some ambiguous, unattainable version of America.

The Kids Are All Right

2010-08-09T12:23:00.000-04:00

*Spoilers Alert*

I finally got to see what is being hailed as the lesbian-Brokeback Mountain, The Kids Are All Right, over the weekend. Aside from becoming a box office success in spite of its LGBTQ storyline, the similarities between the two films stop there; and frankly, Kids is far more relatable and interesting than Brokeback ever was.

As I've explained before, I love Julianne Moore and was thrilled to learn of her lesbian leading role opposite Annette Bening in this very-hyped film festival darling.

The trailers actually give a good plot summary without giving too much away. Bening and Moore have been married for about 20 years with two kids, each conceived using the same anonymous sperm donor. When Joni (Mia Wasikowska) turns eighteen and makes contact with her and her brother's biological father (Mark Ruffalo), it exasperates already mounting family tensions.

As dozens of reviewers have already stated, this film is perfectly cast. Bening and Moore are always a pleasure to watch and they have very dynamic chemistry. Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Josh Hutcherson also deliver great performances as their kids. I can't remember ever seeing Mark Ruffalo in anything else (I know of him though), so I don't know if I was annoyed by him or by his character. But regardless, I felt absolutely no sympathy for him in this film. He had moments of redeemability, but I kind of blamed him for a lot of the drama that played out.

The film overall is less a "gay parents" film and more of a family comedy-drama, in the vein of Little Miss Sunshine or Junebug. The filmmakers don't downplay the queerness, but the big draw of Brokeback was the gay storyline, whereas I would say the big draw for Kids is the family/relationships storyline.

I am on the steering committee for DC's LGBTQ film festival, Reel Affirmations, and during our last meeting many of the members were decrying the film for its plot. In particular, the affair that Moore's character has with Ruffalo. Likewise, many LGBTQ film critics around the country have cited this as a sore spot, perpetuating stereotypes that lesbians just need to find the right dick to turn straight.

I actually didn't have a problem with this aspect and I thought the film dealt with it very well. The affair was less about Moore's character "needing dick," and more about her connecting with someone else while working through her marital issues. Even before we meet the sperm donor, we seen the tension and unpleasantness between Moore and Bening -- they clearly are not as happy with their marriage as they once were. That's not to say they aren't in love, or Moore is suddenly straight; they're just dealing with the same issues that every long-term couple faces. I even thought that Moore's character explains her actions incredibly well, reiterating again that it was less about gay vs. straight, and more about her unhappiness at home and need for an outlet (she does feel bad about the affair, apologizes profusely, and ends it).

One of my problems with the film had less to do with the affair itself, and more to do with the sexual imagery on screen. Although not nearly as pornographic as, say, Unfaithful, but there is a fair amount of sex on screen. However, when it is sex between Moore and Bening, there isn't really anything sexual about it -- they're both clothed, covered, and almost uninterested. But for all of the heterosexual sex scenes, everyone is nude and enjoying themselves (apparently). I guess it can be attributed to the fact that the straight sex occurs between individuals who haven't been married for 20 years and are consequently a bit more passionate. But it was just a discrepancy between the scenes that I picked up on.

Much has been made by critics and viewers alike regarding Moore and Bening watching gay male porn while they are having sex. Much like the affair, I thought this was very well explained by the characters themselves (when questioned by their son, actually), and it's really a non-issue for me. The entire film reinforces the idea of sexual fluidity and that it might not be an either-or prospect for everybody; and I think not having this binary, black and white system on screen is what so many people, gay and straight, are getting hung up on.

One part of the film that did make me exceedingly uncomfortable were the semi-racist exchanges between Moore and her employee, Luis. Moore's character is a landscape artist and has one Latino employee, Luis, who almost serves as Moore's non-English speaking conscience. Because Luis works for Moore, he is often nearby when she and Ruffalo are having sex. She takes her guilt out on him, accusing him of having a drug problem and eventually firing him. With a nearly 100% white cast (Ruffalo is also having an affair with a black woman, Yaya DaCosta, who is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on screen), its kind of unsettling to see the only Latino man in the film being treated so poorly and only fulfilling a stereotype (i.e. Mexican day laborer).

Without giving any more away, I was exceedingly happy that this film didn't have a tragic ending. I grew fearful that it would end horribly and was pleasantly surprised to leave the theater in a (mostly) good mood. I don't know if it will get any Oscar nods come 2011 (Bening and Moore will surely get the almost-guaranteed Golden Globe acting nominations), but it was a pretty engaging way to spend 2 hours and I'm happy that its audience is steadily expanding.

Prop 8 Unconstitutional

2010-08-04T17:13:00.003-04:00

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages." - 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in his ruling on California's Prop 8, a voter initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

Congratulations and I'm again California dreamin' (although DC's not too shabby).

Reliving Lilith

2010-08-04T16:39:00.001-04:00

As I anticipated earlier in the summer, I got to see Lilith Fair over the weekend.

I have to admit that I was a bit hesitant heading to the event. Instead of attending Washington, DC's Lilith, my friends and I decided to head up to NYC for the weekend and attend the Saturday festival there (actually in Holmdel, New Jersey). The day of our trip, one of my best friends informed us that she was unable to attend, providing an early cloud over our otherwise sunny weekend. Coupled with the cancellation of Carly Simon (and Selena Gomez), I feared that Lilith would be as disastrous as critics had reported.

It was not. In fact, it was spectacular, minus a few hang-ups.

My friends and I arrived at the PNC Arts Center in the late afternoon. Following reports of canceled shows, performers dropping out, and poor ticket sales, I expected the three of us to walk up and be welcomed with open arms by Sarah McLachlan herself. "Where have you three been?" she would ask. "We've been waiting!"

This, however, was not the case.

By my estimate, I would say the amphitheater was 85% to 95% full, which was amazing and unexpected! The line-up -- Indigo Girls, Suzanne Vega, Sara Bareilles, Priscilla Renea, Cat Power, Jill Hennessey, Danielia Cotton, Beth Orton, Missy Higgins, Serena Ryder, and McLachlan -- was impressive, and each performer captivated the crowd. I was particularly excited to see Missy Higgins, whom I last saw at Sydney's Live Earth in 2007, and she was as talented and adorable as ever.

Queens of the evening, however, were definitely the Indigo Girls and Sarah McLachlan. The crowd went wild when they each came out onto stage, and most of the audience knew the words to every single song. Finishing the night with a group sing-a-long with all the performers (minus the noticeably absent Higgins), the show ended on a high and I was so happy we had experienced this event. When I read news of Lilith Fair in 2011, I was thrilled and will gladly stake out lawn seats again.

Throughout the year, though, the feminist and progressive communities have been critical of Lilith on two specific points: lack of diversity and corporate sponsorship.

First, yes, there was a noticeable lack of women of color performing at Lilith. With the cancellation of Selena Gomez, the NYC festival only had two women of color (Renea and Cotton). The idea that Lilith Fair is a "whites-only" event is a stereotype McLachlan has been trying to escape since its 1997 inception. Overall, the 2010 Lilith definitely had more racial and age diversity than those of the late-90s, but I think that this lack of awareness is one of the reasons Lilith was forced to cancel nearly 20 shows.

For example, Lilith canceled both of its Florida shows. However, the line-ups for these shows scheduled few, if any, Latina women to perform -- which seems ridiculous given the state's high Latino population. Likewise, the show for predominately-Black Washington, DC featured only one Black female performer (Nneka). How does this make sense?

McLachlan clearly tried to overcome Lilith's reputation as a female folk-rock festival -- as evidenced by the inclusion of Ke$ha, Rihanna, Metric, and Marina & the Diamonds. But perhaps it would have done the organizers well to be a bit more aware of their audience at each respective location. The Midwest would generally be more receptive to country acts, while the coasts would attract listeners attuned to R&B and dance. Obviously scheduling is an issue when putting on a show of this magnitude, but scaling it down to 10 or 12 shows might make the line-ups more flexible and geographically relevant.

The second biggest criticism surrounds the pervasiveness of corporate sponsorship. This actually does not bother me. We live in an age where LGBTQ Pride Festivals are sponsored by Absolut Vodka; so why should we expect Lilith Fair to be any different? Corporate sponsorship is something arts and entertainment events need to exist; so as long as Lilith is dependent on them to function, then I am OK to resign myself to that fact.

My biggest criticism of the show I attended, however, is born out of ABC's sponsorship. In between the headliners, ABC screened the pilot episode of a brand new show, "Better with You." The sitcom follows three couples as they have "hilarious" misadventures on a daily basis. All I can say is that star, Joanna Garcia, deserves better than this awful show. The stars of the show are all marriage-obsessed women, none of whom are people of color or queer.

And this is the show ABC chose to screen at Lilith Fair?! I can tell you that no one was laughing. But I did get a battery-powered fan that bore the insignia "ABC.com" for filling out my comment card.

Overall, I am very happy that I got to experience this, and I would definitely go back. Despite a few critiques, it was great to be in the company of a like-minded audience being apart of a festival none of us thought would ever happen again. Here's to a new and improved 2011 Lilith!

Bonus fun: I posed the question to my friends, If you could design the perfect Lilith, and the only requirement was the performer needed to identify as a woman, which 5 women would you pick? I chose Madonna, Alanis Morrissette, Annie Lennox, Tori Amos, and Lady GaGa (and yes, I'm aware this is just a group of white women).

iBite Apple

2010-07-28T15:46:00.000-04:00

For anyone who follows me on Twitter, you will have noticed that I periodically tweet updates on Apple's failings and mistakes.

It's not that I like to revel in other people's faults or that I have something against Steve Jobs or Apple, I don't. I own an iPod and use iTunes regularly. And as rumors swirl that Verizon will begin carrying the iPhone next year, I will most likely cave-in and purchase one. Apple has genuinely developed some superior products and moved technology forward in ways that Microsoft has failed to do in recent years and I recognize that.

My major beef with Apple is its desire to establish itself as Disney 2.0, making Steve Jobs heir apparent to Walt Disney. Its not that I think Disney is untouchable or Apple is misguided, but I don't appreciate Apple's attempts to establish and enforce what they believe to be the universal code of morality.

Apple users, much like Disney enthusiasts, frequently adopt a live-or-die attitude about the latest Apple products, despite ethical or technological flaws (how many iPhone users really like AT&T?). And much how I continue to drink Coke Zero despite the Coca Cola Company being connected to murders in South America, I think Apple users should also understand what kind of company they are standing behind and make the suitable rationalizations to continue to do so (again, me and Coke).

Gizmodo is reporting that Apple recently removed three of its bestselling books from the bestseller list because they were considered too erotic/pornographic. Although the books are still available for purchase in the iTunes bookstore, they are no longer recognized as bestsellers.

This is just one of the many actions Apple and Jobs have taken in recent months to suppress what it considers to be "adult-oriented" material. With the launch of the iPad, Jobs vowed that he would never allow a "porn app" to be made available for purchase (you can still access pornographic websites through the iPad's/iPod's/iPhone's internet browser). Magazines have also reported Apple censoring nude or semi-nude photographs for their iPad versions, when the same images are available on their websites or in print.

Although priding itself on benefits for its LGBTQ employees, Apple apparently takes a very different (and very Disney-like) public stance with regards to LGBTQ content. Many viewers have caught double standards in terms of censoring comic books and other visuals, whereby female nudity is not censored but images of same-sex engagement is (although Apple now claims to have rectified the "error"). The popular app, Grindr, which allows gay men to locate other gay men for sex, was recently forced to apply Apple's PG-rated image standards to its customers, thus restricting the amount of skin users could show in their profiles. Apple also rejected a gay NYC tourist app because it was too risque, among other reasons.

These, of course, are only the examples that have been caught by vigilant users and gained media traction.

My conversations with Apple users about the company's top-down form of censorship usually ends up in "Apple is a private company, they can do whatever they want" argument purgatory. Actually, that's not true -- Apple is a publicly traded company (APPL) that must answer to its shareholders. And while I'm sure a majority could care less about Grindr, I haven't heard of any outcries in favor of or against censorship.

But let's forget that for a minute -- shareholders aren't supposed to be micro-managers, they're supposed to be there to boost the stock rating and vote on major issues. So then, why does Apple favor censorship, rather than mirroring other web companies that provide parental controls, proof of age, and other such restrictions to keep racy images out of the hands of minors? Are we supposed to believe that Steve Jobs never looks at pornography?! And since most of these cases of censorship seem to be censoring images that are readily available elsewhere in non-pornographic settings (online or not), then why does Apple care?

Finally, as with most forms of censorship, I cannot find anything describing Apple censoring excessively violent content (if someone has, please share) as unilaterally as it does with sexual content. Many of its bestselling films and books could easily be categorized as excessively violent. I see no attempts by Apple to remove so-called "torture-porn" horror films (i.e. Saw, The Hills Have Eyes, etc) from the front page of iTunes or the bestseller list. And how many comics that are censored because of nudity contain gory images on the next page?

For all the technological wizardry that Apple has provided the world, a few cases of censorship might seem like small potatoes. However, as Apple rapidly monopolizes the various media markets, it does raise a red flag as to how much Apple will be able to influence culture and alter social norms. Just as Disney set the tone for all animated movies throughout the 20th Century, companies hoping to develop apps and partnerships with Apple have no choice but to abide by Apple's conservative viewpoints. And as iTunes imitators and smartphones flounder, then the public is left with no choice but to also buy into Apple's take on morality.

Obama's Point of View

2010-07-27T13:13:00.001-04:00

The earth shook this week as it was announced that President Obama would become the first sitting-President to appear on ladies' gab fest, The View; offering an unprecedented level of validity to a show that has been plagued by infighting and factual inaccuracies.

This won't be Obama's first talk show as President, having already appeared on The Tonight Show and the Late Show with David Letterman. And while those shows are known for their political lampooning, The View actually participates in political discussions on a daily basis.

Liberal and conservative bloggers alike lit up at the prospect of Obama going head to head with ultra-conservative host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck has repeatedly spoken out against Obama's policies, civil liberties, and feminism, while expressing her own convoluted view of the world and American politics. But while Hasselbeck has no problem arguing with Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar, she clearly backs down when put face-to-face with her visiting opponents.

Look at how she yawns and feigns boredom while Kathy Griffin is talking about her act. And when she finally makes a passive aggressive statement about Kathy being unfunny and Kathy retorts, Elisabeth quickly recoils and shuts up. Then, only weeks later when Kathy is not sitting two feet away from her, Hasselbeck has no problem calling Kathy "scum." So while some may hope for an Obama-Hasselbeck showdown, if she can't stand up for herself in the presence of comedian, how can we expect her to do so in front of the President of the United States?

Personally I think Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar (who currently has the smartest primetime talk show of any network) will be more critical of Obama than Hasselbeck could ever be. Both support Obama while criticizing a lot of his choices and policies. Even as Barbara Walters (supposedly) returns for this very special episode, I think Goldberg and Behar will be the ones to watch when it comes to grilling Obama on anything substantive.

The possibility of on air fighting aside, other commentators are wondering if appearing on The View is somewhat demeaning for the President. But you know, The View rates very highly among women ages 18-49. Many probably are moderates who might have become disenfranchised with Obama and the Democrats, and The View provides him with a platform to appeal to voters who may not tune into Presidential press conferences or late night. While I don't expect his appearance to work miracles, maybe it will change a few minds. Maybe even Hasselbeck's.

TNG: Secret Identity

2010-07-21T20:06:00.003-04:00

An article I wrote about going to "Star Wars in Concert" and geek pride is over at The New Gay.

To read about my secret identity, go check it out!

Skin Deep

2010-07-16T16:46:00.002-04:00

Tea partiers are in an uproar because the NAACP has condemned the "alleged" racism that spawned the movement. The condemnation is resonating so deeply that Larry King lost control of his own show as opposite sides of the political spectrum (including Ben Stein) word vomited all over Larry's desk.

While the leaders of the Tea Party are insisting that the movement is based on that of economic reform, it began, by pure coincidence, right as our first Black President took office -- months before health care reform talks even began (to be fair, this was at the same time Bush signed the first stimulus bill). Signs comparing Obama to Hitler and using the "N-word" are displays tea party organizers are quick to dismiss as abnormal and claim they silence those individuals who insist on using such imagery and language.

Sadly, it doesn't seem the "real Americans" who pray to Saint Palin got the memo.

A political party built on economic reform and states' rights is nothing new nor anything to laugh at -- but that party already exists and it goes by the name Libertarian. If this many Americans really cared so much about the economy and states' rights, then shouldn't we have seen a surge in popularity for the Libertarian movement? Or perhaps those Americans wouldn't have let the Republican party fall into disarray when they began pandering to the religious right in the 1980s. No, there must have been a spark that called these people into action, otherwise the Tea Party would have most certainly been around and causing trouble during the Reagan and Clinton years.

Despite party leaders' claims that their movement is not born out of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia, its hard to avoid the fact that the movement gained momentum right as we elected a black man, saw female political leaders reach new heights, expanded LGBTQ rights, and began reforming immigration laws. If the movement was truly and solely economic-based, then there should have been more outcry over the billions of wasted tax dollars spent on two wars started under President Bush.

In fact, FreedomWorks' website has absolutely no mention of wasteful military spending.

One of the more shrewd political moves coming out of the tea party is their complete silence on social issues. And while the party's official leaders maintain that the agenda will steer clear of divisive social issues, its hard to ignore the fact that the party's most prominent supporters -- Sarah Palin, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-6th-MN), and Glenn Beck -- are also some of the most notoriously bigoted people in the country. In fact, I have yet to see a tea party supporter also come out in favor of reproductive freedom or affirmative action.

When a Federal Judge declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, the tea party's relative silence was heralded by some as indication that tea partiers should, in theory, be against DOMA since its against their "small government" principles. In fact, the reason the judge declared it unconstitutional was because DOMA violates a state's right to define marriage -- not because of any notion of equality. However, let's turn back to Palin and Bachmann -- both of whom support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

That doesn't sound like small government to me; but I guess it would make marriage fall under their "constitutional government" heading.

Unfortunately, it is exactly the tea party's silence on social issues that continues to cultivate criticism from groups like the NAACP. Republicans might be conservative assholes, but at least they're honest about it! Bush never once ignored abortion and gay marriage -- he launched all out wars on personal freedoms and was proud of it! We knew what we were getting and there was no underhanded dealings on these fronts.

But unless they prove me wrong, I will go on agreeing with the NAACP in their claims of bigotry and racism from a movement that is not all that it claims to be.

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

2010-07-14T10:24:00.001-04:00

Only days after the audio for his racist, sexist rant leaked, Radar Online released another clip of Mel Gibson sounding stark-raving mad. This time, Gibson threatens the mother of his child, Oksana Grigorieva, saying that he will beat and kill her. Radar is also reporting that the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is currently investigating reports of domestic violence and have subpoenaed the tapes she apparently recorded without Gibson's knowledge.

Mel Gibson's career has been in a downward spiral ever since his 2006 DUI and subsequent antisemitic rant. And while he directed the equally antisemitic Passion of the Christ (and surprisingly not awful but very bloody Apocalypto), eight years passed between leading roles (2002's Signs and 2010's flop, Edge of Darkness). He had been filming a new movie directed by (one of my all-time favorites) Jodie Foster, but due to the release of these tapes, production has been put on hold indefinitely with no release date scheduled.

All in all, the new millennium has not been working out so well for Mr. Gibson.

As this drama has unfolded, I've been wondering if Mel Gibson will be able to recover from this. So far, it looks like Gibson's career might follow in the steps of fellow religious zealot, Tom Cruise, and be destined never to resurrect itself (haha). But I'm always amazed by what the American public is capable of overlooking and whom they're willing to forgive.

If you're a famous white man who's accused of wrongdoing -- be it getting caught with a sex worker, beating up your wife, or doing lines of coke off a donkey in Tijuana -- the American public will generally turn the other cheek. Sometimes, if you're Robert Downey Jr., Christian Bale, or Sean Penn, such acts can actually bolster your career. Want an Oscar? Develop a drug addiction! Surprisingly, celebrity men of color, especially athletes, are also fairly impervious to slander and accusations (and convictions) of wrongdoing. And while we're quick to throw judgment at famous men of color (see Kanye West), we also quickly move on (he is back in the Top 40).

Unfortunately, if you're a woman, you're fucked. Unless you're Britney Spears, you're DUI has landed you a one-way ticket to VH1 where you will live out your days gaining and losing weight while crying on Dr. Drew's shoulders. I'm sure the E! Network has been counting down the minutes until it can turn Lindsay Lohan into Anna Nicole II. America loves seeing women get into trouble, from Ke$ha to Paris Hilton, and by the time the trial is over or she has sobered up, we've moved on.

Mel's case is interesting because we've actually caught him on tape, repeatedly, instead of relying on paparazzi photos or second-hand accounts. We never actually saw Hugh Grant with a prostitute, only the mug shots. Likewise, we've never seen Russell Crowe throw a phone at somebody -- we've only heard many, many, many accounts of it happening. But Mel's already been down this path before, and he's decided to throw in racism and domestic violence for good measure -- on top of his reputation of being ultra-conservative and incredibly religious. As a result, this might be the final nail in the coffin for Mad Max.

We also need look no further than Chris Brown to see how surprisingly seriously the US takes domestic violence. Chris Brown has cried, sang, and tweeted his apology for beating up Rihanna, and America (thankfully) won't get behind him again. So while teenage girls might have blamed Rihanna more than Chris Brown, the powers that be seem intent on keeping Brown down. And even though Mel has a twenty-year career to bolster his image, these accusations have all but undone his years of work.

But frankly, if this is the end of Mel's career, I won't be shedding any tears.

GBF's Going Fast!

2010-07-08T16:21:00.001-04:00

The always insightful Teen Vogue published an article describing the hottest new trend for teen girls: gay best friends!

Long story short, Teen Vogue is letting girls know that gay men are "fun, trust-worthy, and supportive, plus you don't have to compete with [them]."

Well, that last part may or may not be true, depending on the girl's boyfriend.

But careful girls, because GBFs are hot items! "'It's a little ridiculous how in demand a gay best friend has become in the past year,' Mimi says."

Overall the article is pretty humorous -- until you remember the audience of Teen Vogue. Much in the way that Stephenie Meyer has taught legions of Twihards to abandon your friends in favor of an abusive relationship, writer Lindsay Talbot has pretty much given the OK to objectify an entire segment of the population (not that Queer Eye hadn't instilled that into heterosexual America already).

I guess the silver lining to this article is that several of the girls quoted do discuss the fact that their friendships are meaningful and equally sided in terms of support. But at the same time, when are we ever going to see a Teen Vogue article called, "Is a ABF (Asian Best Friend) the new must have accessory for teen girls?"

Mama Grizzly

2010-07-08T11:25:00.001-04:00

Sarah Palin has released what looks suspiciously like a preemptive presidential campaign video.

The voiceover is taken from Palin's recent speech in front of an anti-choice group; and aside from announcing her DC move-in date of November 2, 2012, it almost seems to be a response to the ongoing criticism that Palin has misappropriated the word "feminist."

Let me get the truth out of the way: Like her or hate her, Palin really has caused a million little cracks in the political glass ceiling. Hillary Clinton was never going to win over conservatives no matter how smart she was. Palin has found her niche and appealed to an audience that is notoriously and blatantly sexist. And while I think many of her die-hard male supporters would still like to revoke a woman's right to vote, Palin has engaged a segment of the population (i.e. tea partiers) who previously stayed home on election day (and I imagine many will continue to stay home on election days despite their occasional outcries).

Much of the "is she or isn't she" debate seems to rest on Palin's staunchly anti-choice position. While many people are anti-choice, for most the issue isn't really something to get worked up over as many probably feel it will never affect them. But Palin isn't just anti-choice, she is really anti-choice. And not only does she want to take away a woman's right to get an abortion, she wants to remove any exemptions (such as the rape and incest clauses), as well as any contraception and sexual health knowledge the might allow people to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Palin's belief that women don't have a right to control their bodies is only the tip of the iceberg. As Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she notoriously enacted a resolution to make rape victims pay for their own police-administered rape evidence kits. She is also outright hateful towards the LGBTQ community (despite her claim as Vice President nominee that she "tolerates" them) and supports incredibly racist immigration policy, such as Arizona's recent law. She also has been extremely critical of Obama's handling of the BP oil spill, but continues to support extensive offshore drilling and is against any move towards clean energy.

To me, being a feminist (or even just a human being) means not only supporting women's rights, but not infringing on the rights of others. Her faux-presidential campaign video hails the "mom awakening" and the taking back of America, but how can she be this strong feminist when her entire platform is based on the continued disenfranchising of at least 50% of the US population? "Restoring American Values" is really code for "Installing Palin Morality." And how is that any better or worse than a Democratic leader who is supposedly pushing the country towards a socialist regime?

Although it is only two-minutes long, Palin's pseudo-campaign video was light on facts and high on ambiguous emotions. Like most of her appearances, she spoke in circles without expressing a firm opinion. But the images of angry protesters and Palin lovers did nothing to convince me that their glorious leader is what Gloria Steinem pictured when she dreamed of a female president. And it makes me scared of what a Palin administration might mean for those of us who don't agree with her ideology.

Desperately Seeking Lilith

2010-06-30T15:31:00.002-04:00

In one month, I will finally (and hopefully) get to live out one of my lifelong dreams: I will attend Lilith Fair.

When Sarah McLachlan and company organized the festivals back in 1997, 1998, and 1999, I was a bit too young to appreciate them. I was certainly aware of their existence, but it was right before I turned into an avid concertgoer (my first concert was Cher in 1999 at the age of 14 -- I have seen her two more times since then) and before I discovered my inner-feminist. So as my journey of self-discovery moved forward, I grew to regret missing the chance to partake in one of the celebrations.

Then fate smiled down on me and the 2010 Lilith Fair revival was put into place, leaving me chomping at the bit for the chance to see a collection of feminist musicians perform for a like-minded audience. Unfortunately, the Fair hasn't gone to plan.

The 2010 Lilith Fair -- which had initially planned a 36-city run -- was marred last week with the cancellation of two shows, Phoenix and Nashville, due to poor ticket sales, with more rumored to follow (shows in Texas and Florida are apparently next on the chopping block). The Go-Gos canceled their summer farewell tour due to injury, and consequently, their appearances at Lilith; followed shortly by Kelly Clarkson and La Roux pulling out of the Minneapolis event. And despite positive reviews for the performers at the festival's opening show in Calgary, most reviewers couldn't help but notice the lackluster crowd and disorganized amphitheater.

Writer Jessica Herman over at Slate posed a question that I have been pondering a lot recently: Why Do We Need Lilith Fair Anymore?

Herman describes her own relationship with Lilith, wondering what Sarah and company are trying to promote when the alternative female singer is passed her 90s heyday? The mix of pop, rock, R&B, and country acts indicate a conscious effort to broaden appeal, and the line-up really is impressive: Carly Simon, Gossip, Sheryl Crow, Mary J. Blige, Queen Latifah, Ke$ha (?), Selena Gomez (?!), and Rihanna, to name a few. But for me, despite a chance to see a handful of these artists at any given show, what this Lilith Fair is really lacking is a message.

As someone who is unable to attend the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, Lilith Fair has always been my feminist utopia. My musical tastes might lean more towards electro-pop, but with 2010's diverse line-up each date has had a few artists that pique my interest. But at the same time, the collection of performers seems hopelessly random due to the lack of a unifying message.

Lilith Fair of old was not only a celebration of women but also an outright embrace of feminism, and sadly this led to some of the harshest critiques of the festival, as pointed out by Herman. Since the festival was conceived during female alt-rock's peak, the initial line-up overwhelmingly included those artists that fit into that mold -- Indigo Girls, Jewel, Fiona Apple, Lisa Loeb. As a result, while McLachlan was applauded for her efforts, Lilith Fair -- like much of feminism -- was criticized for appealing to white, upper-class, Amerocentric values. And with each year, the line-up expanded and became more diverse in an effort to combat the criticisms.

2010 Lilith Fair, however, seems to have forsaken feminism (like so many people have) in favor of marketing. Yes, Lilith Fair will donate millions of dollars to local, female-centric charities throughout the US and Canada, but what is bringing all of these female performers together besides a vagina? Do Emmylou Harris and Selena Gomez share the same feminist ideals? Would Selena and the younger performers even identify as feminist?! The festival was crafted this year to appeal to a broad audience, as evidenced by the very diverse line-up that numbers into the hundreds; but in the process, it seems to have lost the meaning behind it. The only mention of feminism or sisterhood on Lilith Fair's official site is via a link to its Wikipedia page.

Jessica Herman wonders if Lilith Fair even needs to have a "message" at this point. None of the other music festivals are really pushing an ideology, and the musical landscape for women is a lot different than it was in 1997. For once, female artists are outselling men thanks to relative newcomers like GaGa, Katy Perry, and Rihanna, and icons like Madonna, Kylie, and Britney (we can discuss all of their impact on feminism later). Why couldn't Lilith Fair be like Glastonbury, Bonnaroo, or Coachella and simply exist for the sake of showcasing good music?

Maybe that's what Sarah McLachlan and company were really trying to do this year with such a large and diverse lineup. And if Lilith Fair was an annual occurrence, or not a tour and instead a real festival in the vein of Glastonbury, then that seems like it would be a logical next step. But Lilith has been gone for so long and feminism has become an increasingly dirty word that it would have been nice to see the performers really take the lead instead of shying away from what brought them together in the first place.

XXX

2010-06-25T10:32:00.000-04:00

I don't know why this took so long, but it's finally done.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the international organization that approves domain names, finally approved the ".xxx" domain name for creation and distribution to pornographic websites.

.xxx has been widely supported by both sex positive and pro-censorship activists for years, but ICANN has been resistant. I remember hearing about the .xxx domain back in the early 00s, but it wasn't until this year when a US court found ICANN in the wrong for not creating the domain did the council finally agree to move forward and approve the addition.

Censorship is a tricky subject, and generally, I am not for it in any form. Hate speech is where it becomes tricky for me -- and so does excessive violence when sexual content is condemned -- but I've supported the creation of the .xxx label for pornography for years. As we've seen parental controls "inadvertently" block non-pornographic websites because they contain the word "breast," "sex," or "gay," we have been in desperate need for a solution or smarter parental controls. But sadly, it's easier for Microsoft, Firefox, and Google to retain their broader parent controls than devise more complicated and comprehensive tools. This new domain name will hopefully be part of the solution.

Obviously, no one will be required to use the .xxx domain, and if browsers choose to systematically exclude .xxx domains from search results, we will likely see very little buy-in from adult businesses. But if this step encourages parents and online content blockers to allow websites with sexual health or LGBTQ information to pass through their filters, then this may turn out to be a very positive moment in the history of the internet and free speech.

Expect to start seeing .xxx domains pop up at the end of this year.

Impeaching Perez

2010-06-18T13:59:00.001-04:00

As you all probably know by now, I follow Hollywood gossip blogs faithfully, primarily relying on Oh No They Didn't!

One of my earliest resources was the gossip rag written by Perez Hilton. For several years, I would turn to him for the latest gossip and he was fairly reliable. But slowly, I noticed that Perez became less concerned with exposing Hollywood scandals and more obsessed with his own celebrity status. I also began to find him horribly sexist and offensive. I found it exceedingly inappropriate -- and increasingly frequent -- that Perez (who is rumored not to even write his blog anymore) would perpetuate misogynist and homophobic ideals.

With few exceptions, every picture of a female would contain Perez's trademark white scrawl labeling her a "whore" or "slut," for no other reason than he didn't like her (most likely because the subject in question wouldn't bow down to him). As a member of at least two oppressed groups (LGBTQ and Latino), I hoped that Perez would understand how hurtful and damning language can be. But he didn't and doesn't, and following my friend Alice's lead, I gave up Perez and I have been Perez-free for almost a year now.

But with this latest headline-making scandal -- his tweeted photo of seventeen-year-old Miley Cyrus' crotch -- Perez's desperate cries for attention seem to have come back to bite him in the ass -- and it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person!

I have major issues with "age of consent" laws. I also realize that we now know that Miley's crotch was in fact fully clothed and covered when snapped by a paparrazo. However, after years of leeching off others' fame and success, I could not have been more thrilled to read that ABC had pulled advertisements from Perez's site as a result of the incident.

Gawker compiled a "best of" series of clips of Perez on The Joy Behar Show last night, and the total lack of responsibility is appalling. As Joy grills him on his motives behind posting the picture, Perez backtracks, sidetracks, and contradicts himself; ultimately concluding that it is Miley's fault for not getting out of the car in a more "ladylike" fashion. He even goes so far as claiming the picture is simply perpetuating the hypersexualized image that Miley has adopted recently -- a very "blame the rape victim" mentality, and I could not believe even he would stoop so low.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the Miss USA/Carrie Prejan controversy and fight with will.i.am, Perez is happier to have the world hating him than not talking about him at all (much like Ann Coulter). He eats this kind of thing up and I doubt that many more advertisers will follow ABC's lead and his site will most like receive more traffic. Which is a shame, because it would be great if he could actually learn something from this experience other than he should wait to post nude pictures until his subject has turned 18.

A Piece of Work

2010-06-17T10:06:00.000-04:00

Last night, a few friends and I went to an advance screening of the new documentary, Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work.

You must see this film!

I've been a longtime casual fan of Joan Rivers (minus a period in the 90s when she was feuding with Gillian Anderson). Although I've never seen her live, like many Americans, I was familiar with her work as a stand-up comic, her cameo in The Muppets Take Manhattan, and, of course, grilling the poorly dressed on the red carpet.

A few years ago I saw an Inside the Actors Studio-like interview with Joan and it completely erased any negative opinions I may have had of her. The life she's led and the career she's made for herself (with all of its ups and downs) are awe inspiring. This documentary, which is essentially a year in her life, is equally humanizing, sympathetic, and funny and imparts a better understanding on this feminist funny-lady.

At 77, Joan is still a workaholic and gladly takes any job that is offered to her -- and she has no plans on retiring. Although it has become a tired comparison at this point, but simply put, there would be no Kathy Griffin without Joan Rivers. The film even explores the interaction between the two -- showing both Kathy's adoration and Joan's almost-jealousy of this new, loudmouth woman who has swooped in and stolen her act and her gigs. At one point, Joan even (jokingly) says to an audience (I'm paraphrasing), "Let's see if Kathy Griffin is around in 45 years!"

This exchange and sentiment -- not just with Joan and Kathy, but with Joan and nearly all younger comedians -- is actually one of the more fascinating aspects of the film. Joan constantly mentions how annoyed she gets with being called an "icon," saying the word implies that she is passed her prime and should shrink quietly into retirement. It seems that there's even a hint of sexism to the word -- Joan is an icon, but it is aptly noted that Don Rickles (who is ten years her senior) is not expected to shut up and retire as she is expected to. I couldn't help but wonder if an interview with Madonna on the notion of "iconography" would yield similar feelings from the music legend? What happens when you're a household name but you're not ready to give up your craft?

Leaving the movie -- after seeing Joan struggle with writing a play that flops, win Celebrity Apprentice, face hecklers, and have trouble booking gigs -- I silently hoped that this film would earn Joan an Academy Award nomination for "Best Documentary Feature." It certainly would be a fitting "fuck you" to all of her critics and doubters who would rather focus on her plastic surgery than her legendary talent.

That's Enough Katy Perry!

2010-06-15T15:49:00.000-04:00

I really dislike Katy Perry.

Unfortunately, she has been the singer (and occasional writer) behind three of the catchiest songs from the last two years: "I Kissed a Girl," "Hot n Cold," and "California Gurls." But regardless of her infectious melodies, I find her to be overtly homophobic (less we forget "Ur so Gay") and I've watched her build a career out of gay jokes, lesbian exploitation, and sexual stereotyping.

Today, Perry unveiled the music video for her beach song, "California Gurls," complete with whipped cream shooting breasts.

Katy Perry - New Music - More Music Videos

The video is cute and completely unexpected based on the summertime lyrics found throughout the song, but at least it is finally a memorable music video from Perry who seemingly has trouble coming up with interesting visuals to match her poppy music.

I do find it a little hypocritical for Katy Perry to once again be using her body and sexual fantasies to make money when, only a week ago, she criticized Lady GaGa for using religious imagery to do the same.

Oh, but I forgot: Perry wasn't singling out GaGa -- she just happened to tweet a pro-religion statement the same day GaGa dressed as a latex-clad nun and swallowed a rosary.

In an effort to fight rumors of a feud or jealousy, Perry told Entertainment Weekly that she's "a massive fan [of GaGa]" and that it was "more of a non-specific, general thing. But everybody made it out to be a cat fight. I think people love cat fights. It’s a turn on for people.”

This is exactly why Katy Perry bugs me -- she doesn't stand up for her beliefs and she never seems to get it. When a French DJ asked her (like I mused) if it was perhaps hypocritical to judge GaGa as blasphemous while pretending to be a lesbian or bisexual for profit, Perry was quick to say "spirituality and sexuality are two separate things. When you decide to put it into the same subject, it gets interesting for some people."

Perry made similar statements in 2009 when she was interviewed by The New Gay. Instead of acknowledging that yes, perhaps "Ur so Gay" and "I Kissed a Girl" might be the slightest bit offensive or exploitative, she simply said, "[t]hat’s unfortunate. It’s not what I came to do." Well that clears that up! I'm glad to know that the offense she takes with GaGa, Madonna, and soon-to-be-husband Russell Brand over their "blasphemous statements" is more legitimate and sympathetic than the offense taken by people who have fought their entire lives to express their sexuality openly.

If you're out there wondering why I can so ardently defend GaGa and Madonna while at the same time condemn Katy Perry or Rihanna, it is because I don't find GaGa or Madonna to be singling out and exploiting a group of people. Sure, I think much of the "Alejandro" video is built on shock value (just as "Like a Prayer" was for Madonna), but as reformed/struggling Catholics, I give the two of them more credit when expressing those feelings artistically. And since I have no religious background outside of high school history class, I am more aware of sexual exploitation than I am with potentially "blasphemous" imagery.

What I do know is gay sex, and when I see singers who don't identify as gay and have never so much as spoken a word in favor of gay rights, then I become uncomfortable with them exploiting a community they are not a part of in order to turn a profit (as Madonna did with "Vogue").

Don't Call My Name

2010-06-08T13:35:00.003-04:00

The music video for Lady GaGa's "Alejandro" finally premiered at noon EST today.

I want to quickly say that I understand that she is a very busy woman, but the Haus of GaGa needs to start timing the release of their music videos a bit better. I feel this is the second time that GaGa has released a video after the song has peaked in popularity (the first being "Telephone"). But maybe this will reinvigorate listeners and the song will experience a slight resurgence in popularity (and maybe that's what the Haus wanted all along).

I really like "Alejandro," so I'm frequently surprised to learn that its so divisive among fans and casual listeners. As my friend Emily mused recently, the 80s revival feels like its been going on forever, so maybe "Alejandro" will finally usher in a new era of 90s-inspired music, and I'm ready for it! (Kylie Minogue's Aphrodite, out in early-July, is rumored to be a 90s throwback)

Unlike "Telephone," where I felt the video was used to enhance a possibly underw helming song (even though I loved it), GaGa's clip for "Alejandro" matches the song's already lush soundscape and provided me with intense gratification after extended anticipation. Never one to provide us with a literal-interpretation of her lyrics, GaGa chose homoerotic military imagery to accompany what some are calling the song of the summer. And while I wonder what Middle America's reaction will be, I liked it.

Unfortunately, much like Christina Aguilera's video for "Not Myself Tonight," I can't escape this feeling of deja vu when watching "Alejandro."

When she was on Larry King last week, GaGa expressed the difficulty of following in Madonna's footsteps because she's done it all before. Perhaps GaGa anticipated the comparisons ("Alejandro" was directed by longtime Madonna-collaborator, Steven Klein, after all) and wanted to provide a heads up to those who would accuse her of plagiarism. But in the way that artists are inspired by other artists, perhaps we need to stop decrying every female pop star as simply another Madonna-clone.

"Alejandro" does have GaGa finally stepping into what has until-now been exclusively Kylie-territory; namely, blatant male-on-male sexual imagery. Sure, it seems that the Alejandros in the video are after GaGa, but you also can't escape the kissing, simulated anal sex, bondage, and elements of drag (and GaGa's own masculine appearance in this video) that seemingly scream, "Gay!" And given that GaGa has a larger and more diverse audience than Kylie, at least Stateside, it will certainly be the topic of conversation over at FOX News for some time to come -- and provides the rest of us with a much-needed respite from the onslaught of pseudo-girl-on-girl action that MTV continues to propagate.

After the videos for both "Telephone" and "Alejandro," I almost feel exhausted for GaGa and would perhaps like her to release just a fun, celebratory video next (in the vein of "Just Dance" or "LoveGame"). But never one to repeat herself, I doubt she will return to the tried and true pop star, music video formula. If I may make a suggestion, though: "Monster" certainly would be a good song to see expressed visually.

UPDATE (3:50 PM EDT): I had to add an additional note on the "Alejandro" video because apparently Katy Perry wanted to share her thoughts:

That's funny because I would have said the same thing about pretending to be a lesbian to sell records...

Sexless Relationship

2010-06-01T15:19:00.001-04:00

Once upon a time there was a young actress named Sarah Jessica Parker. After a moderately unsuccessful movie career in the 80s and 90s (minus the masterpiece, Hocus Pocus), SJP ventured into the wasteland known as television. For six years, she worked as star and producer on the hit show, Sex & the City, earning two Emmys and four Golden Globes along the way.

When the show went off the air in 2004, the land grew cold and dark. Single ladies and gay men hounded SJP constantly, wondering when Carrie Bradshaw and her pals would grace us with their presence again. And in 2008, our prayers were answered with the surprisingly delightful feature film follow-up to the series. 40 was again the new 20, and cosmos were downed in celebration.

But SJP got greedy. She commanded her gay henchman, Michael Patrick King, to churn out a suitable follow-up to her box office hit, and the land once again grew dark with the release of Sex & the City 2. SJP lost her credibility and fans questioned their love for this once great franchise.

Long story short: I saw Sex & the City 2 over the weekend and was horribly disappointed.

I became a fan of S&tC a little late in the game. It wasn't until 2006 that I began to watch reruns on TBS (I know, blasphemy), but fulfilling every possible stereotype about my identity, I became obsessed and rushed out to purchase the complete series on DVD. And although I did not attend a midnight screening (it wasn't The X-Files for god's sakes), I did see the first film on opening day and thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Heading into Sex & the City 2, I knew that it wasn't going to be as enjoyable. With the release of every new trailer, I was left wondering, "Why are they making this movie, again?" And then came the reviews. According to Rotten Tomatoes, only 16% of critics rated the movie favorably -- but I said to myself, "The majority of critics are straight men -- they are not the intended audience so I'm sure they just don't get it." But, no, the reviewers knew what they were talking about.

I will say this: it was not as bad as I thought it would be. I also wish I would have made a bet with someone that part of the storyline would include the four women having a madcap adventure dressed in burkas, because they most certainly did!

I'm not going to bore you with the "plot," because the trailers really do an excellent job summing up a two-and-a-half hour film in thirty seconds. I would like to just guide you through some of the highlights, which I know have also been examined to death around the internet.

First: the gay wedding. S&tC has been both condemned and heralded by LGBTQ rights activists. It certainly incorporated gay characters into its storylines, but like Will & Grace, it made every unmarried straight girl want a one-dimensional gay best friend who would go shopping and apparently have no sex life of his own. But hey, the show provided visibility for a community when no visibility existed.

However, taking the only two recurring gay characters on the show and force them into a wedding that makes a Kylie concert look more like the Super Bowl doesn't scream "equality" to me. In fact, when the girls are looking for wedding gifts and Charlotte screeches, "Her gay best friend is marrying my gay best friend!" It sent chills down my spine. I just imagined light bulbs turning on above the heads of millions of fag hags with the utterance of those ten words.

And Liza, oh Liza. I am not a huge Liza Minnelli fan (my boyfriend has enough admiration for her for the both of us), but I recognize her talent. But here she is, 64 years old and being force to warble through "Single Ladies." I imagine this was one of those great ideas in theory that just didn't pan out so well during execution.

Sadly, the marriage of the one-dimensional gay characters was only the beginning of the vapidness. Despite its many detractors, the S&tC franchise did a good job at developing four, well-rounded, sometimes over the top but still sympathetic characters. Sure, they were white, upper-class Manhattanites, but we cared about them. But in this sequel all subtly has been lost and even Carrie and Samantha were more characatures than fully-realized people. Carrie is still neurotic and doesn't seem to have grown one iota since moving to NYC twenty years ago; and Samantha remains the one-note-wonder (and Kim Cattrall really runs with it and makes the most of the material given to her).

The one, surprising-but-amazing highlight of the film is Miranda, and to a lesser extent, Charlotte. Throughout the series, Miranda had ups and downs in terms of likability, but aside from some completely out-of-character fashion choices, she was a beacon of hope in this otherwise abysmal sequel. Writer/Director Michael Patrick King may have lost Carrie and Samantha along the way, but for whatever reason, this gay man wrote an incredibly interesting, realistic, and touching portrayal of motherhood that was only permitted to serve as a minor subplot to the otherwise plotless film.

Much has been said about the insensitivity the film shows towards Islamic/Arab cultures, and it really does (re: the women run around in burkas). The movie was filmed in Morocco but set in Abu Dhabi, and I honestly don't know why. King says he wanted to take the ladies somewhere known for its over-the-top decadence, and apparently Marrakech didn't fit the bill. And while the film tries to promote feminist politics and women's liberation through revealing outfits and karaoke renditions of "I Am Woman," it just comes off as condescending. And when the main characters finally do connect with "real" Arab women, its through the universal language of Gucci and Suzanne Somers. Because isn't that what feminism is all about?

When The X-Files: I Want To Believe came out in 2008, I was so excited! I had been waiting for years, and even though the film was mediocre, it was so much fun to see Mulder and Scully back on the big screen. But with the exception of Miranda, Sex & the City 2 felt less like a get together with old friends and more like a mandatory high school reunion with people who think they're better than you despite their foibles.

Although the sequel failed to earn the big bucks over the weekend, if a third film is being considered, SJP and Michael Patrick King have a lot of work to do before I will consider venturing into their magical world with them again.

Dueling Divas

2010-05-18T11:55:00.003-04:00

Poor Christina Aguilera.

After revealing that she was not the mastermind behind the iamamiwhoami viral videos (btw, the identity has never been revealed, despite several songs available for purchase online), Xtina has been working overtime to regain her footing and make her latest album, Bionic, a hit.

Despite a poorly-received first single, "Not Myself Tonight" -- complete with Madonna-inspired music video -- she continues to assault the media with talk of her futuristic new album and subsequent world tour. Unfortunately, the media and the public are still obsessed with another pop starlet: Lady GaGa. And despite ten years under her belt, journalists continue to insist that the veteran pop star is jacking GaGa's style, musical sensibilities, and even talent.

The supposed feud goes back to the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards when Xtina was promoting her new single, "Keeps Getting Better," and GaGa was beginning to convince the world to "Just Dance." Critics of her VMA performance couldn't help but notice the similarities between Aguilera's newfound appearance and that of the rising New York-based singer. The charges led to a rather harsh comment from Aguilera, which continues to haunt her today, "This person [Lady Gaga] was just brought to my attention not too long ago. I'm not quite sure who this person is, to be honest. I don't know if it is a man or a woman."

Two years later and music critics won't let up, with Aguilera forced to comment on the comparison in every interview she gives (in the recent issue of Out Magazine, Aguilera says of GaGa, "Oh, the newcomer?. . . I think she’s really fun to look at."). GaGa, still on her never-ending world tour, has been immune to such comparisons and has barely spoken a word on Aguilera.

Xtina took to her blog last week to dispel rumors of resentment. "I have absolutely nothing against Lady Gaga or any other female artist in this business. I think she is great, and I appreciate any woman fearless enough to go against the norm." Aguilera goes on to say, "This is not the first time I have been unfairly pitted against another female artist but it will be the last time I comment on the matter."

Aguilera rightly points the finger at sexist journalists working for a sexist society in cultivating this feud (even the gays over at Out). Sure, Aguilera might have been inspired by GaGa, and she is clearly paying homage to Madonna, but why do such similarities result in a female artist being discredited as inauthentic or feuding with a fellow woman?

One needs to look no further than at the pool of male pop stars currently dominating the airwaves as being illustrative of society's desire to cultivate hate among successful women and clamor for collaboration among successful men. Timbaland, Justin Timberlake, will.i.am, Lil Wayne, T.I., Jay-Z, Kanye West, Usher, even Justin Bieber all regularly collaborate in various combinations and are met with overwhelming success. When Usher goes on interviews, no one dares to accuse him of jacking Justin Timberlake's style. All seemingly live in musical harmony, aside from a few minor squabbles and personality clashes.

Women, however, must be competing with one another -- I mean, how could they not!? Lady GaGa is feuding with Katy Perry and Christina Aguilera, who in turn is a rival of Britney Spears, whom Ke$ha is ripping off, who is setting herself up as heir apparent to Rihanna, who is gunning for Beyonce, who is mirroring the grandmother of all divas, Diana Ross. Phew, with all of this feuding I don't understand how any of these women get any work done.

The one thing that women in the music industry can count on is being rewarded for their staying power. Once you hit that twenty-year mark -- the number of whom actually do can be counted on one hand -- you are seemingly immune to such feuding. Mariah Carey, who has been struggling for another smash, is allowed to exist in her own upper-soprano world alongside Janet Jackson. Madonna looks down over all of these pop stars as she counts her money and contemplates if she can even be bothered to release another record. And Kylie Minogue, who just debuted her new single, "All the Lovers," has been praised for breaking away from the GaGa-imitators and marching to the beat of her own disco-drum.

But why should female pop performers have to wait until they are considered "over the hill" by the music industry to finally gain any respect or recognition of originality? Art inspires art, which male pop singers are well aware of and gladly move forward in solidarity without any hair-pulling or accusations of imitation. And who's to say that Justin Bieber isn't any more or less manufactured and packaged than Miley Cyrus?

Whether or not they hold any actual resentment towards one-another, the over-hyped feud between Xtina and GaGa shows us that even if female pop stars are currently outselling their male counterparts, they can't escape the sexism that exists and is fostered when females achieve fame.

Adults-Only Eating

2010-05-13T15:40:00.001-04:00

Newsweek has been receiving a lot of flack (and press) this week for its decision to publish an article by gay writer Ramin Setoodeh which opined that out-gay actors can not convincingly play heterosexual roles. Although not a new argument, Setoodeh expressed his views as inalienable truths and has been backtracking ever since (especially after coming under attack from GLAAD and Kristin Chenoweth).

I've been watching this fight play out in the media feeling surprisingly indifferent. I think there was a failing on Setoodeh's part to more accurately express his concerns-- which he claims aren't that gay actors can't play straight, but instead question why there aren't more openly gay actors in Hollywood. It has all been very dramatic and I frankly don't think I can add anything more to the argument, so I'll leave you to make up your own mind.

Instead, I'm going to focus on something near and dear to my heart: food.

Last week, New York Times writer, Shivani Vora, wrote a helpful guide for parents on which upscale restaurants are suitable to bring young children to, in particular, toddlers. In the comments section, over 100 commenters have been arguing and debating the appropriateness of Vora's article, and the more pressing issue of whether or not young children should even be allowed at upscale/fine dining establishments.

In what will probably come as no shock, I loathe children at restaurants. As a diner, noisy kids who scream and kick really ruin my time out. It is one thing if I'm eating at McDonald's and I know what to expect, but its quite another if I'm on a date in a dark and cozy restaurant. And as a server, I saw how frequently parents treat restaurants as playgrounds and waitstaff as unpaid babysitters. When I took a job as a waiter, I did not anticipate having to keep kids out of the kitchen or having to spend time trying to get stomped-on food out of carpeting.

I have long said that there is a million-dollar idea in opening adult-only restaurants. We have adult-only strip clubs, movies, and bars -- why should the restaurant industry be required to cater to all patrons regardless of age? I would even settle for "Kids" and "No Kids" sections, especially since all of the smoking bans have really freed up some space. Or something equivalent of a PG-13 rating -- no one can eat here unless they're over the age of 13. At least by that point the teenager is probably so moody they will sit quietly and pout instead of running around screaming.

I understand Vora's desire to eat out in locations other than Domino's, as well as the commenters who empathize with her plight; but as many of Vora's detractors have pointed out: if you're planning on spending over $100 on a meal for two, you can afford a babysitter. And I completely agree that if we're banning kids from restaurants, than we should also ban cell phones. In fact, I've dined at restaurants where the servers will ask you to turn off your cell phone and it is amazing.

In CNN's commentary on the internet uproar, they point out that the problem is rarely with the kids but usually stems from parents' refusal to discipline their children or teach them good manners. And teaching good manners is part of part of the job description when you become a parent. When a baby pops out of the womb, she doesn't immediately receive a driver's license. No, kids have to wait 16 years before they can even apply for a permit. Why can't we have a similar structure for children in fine dining establishments? Any parent bringing a child under the age of 13 to a restaurant must present to the host proof that the child has passed etiquette class (I took etiquette class at the age of 12, so this isn't an unreasonable request).

Look, I'll even throw parents a bone since I'm sure this anti-child attitude infringes on the sense of entitlement our society has instilled in them: families can have The Cheesecake Factory. Every single franchise. I'll also throw in TGI Friday's, Applebee's, Ruby Tuesday, and even my beloved Red Lobster. These aren't McDonald's or Burger King, and you can still sit down and enjoy a nice meal with your kids by your side. And if I choose to dine at any of these places, then I will accept what my dining experience might entail and promise not to snarl or complain when a child kicks me in the shin or cries over spilled soda.

But to Shivani Vora and all parents, I understand where you're coming from; but please, allow us childless adults to have at least one sacred space.

Just Wright

2010-05-06T10:30:00.000-04:00

Let me start by acknowledging that I clearly have no precognitive abilities -- apparently I believe anything anyone tells me.

After failing to correctly guess the celebrity coming out this week (I had never even heard of Chely Wright!), and months of speculating about iamamiwhoami's identity (clearly not Christina), perhaps I should just give up on blind items altogether.

However, if nothing else, the country singer's outing (and soon-to-be-released memoir and new album) proves just how lucrative "celebrity" outings are regardless of fame or relevance.

Since the announcement leaked, Chely Wright has appeared in countless magazines, blogs, talk shows, and even an article in The New York Times. All for a woman who had only one Top 40 hit way back in 1999. How is this news?!

As the Times article points out, the minor positive benefit that could come from Wright's disclosure is increased tolerance in the notoriously very conservative and intolerant country music community. However, is Wright a big enough star to even push the industry in such a progressive way? And while Toby Keith might be sharpening his pitchfork for Wright's lesbian ass, Dolly, Reba, Wynona, and the (now ostracized themselves) Dixie Chicks have all been very vocal in their acceptance and support of the LGBTQ community.

Even a lesbian in the country music scene isn't exactly news: kd lang and Melissa Etheridge, both country/rock queens back in the 90s, already broke down barriers years ago. And their careers have been remarkably more successful than Wright's, both pre and post coming out.

As I said last week, more power to Wright for disclosing her sexuality in a public way. Regardless of the financial gains, I know it took a lot of courage. However, perhaps we can stop acting surprised or shocked every time a D-list celebrity comes out of the closet?

No Te Amo

2010-05-04T15:50:00.002-04:00

Oh Rihanna, what did Chris Brown do to you?

Prior to the incident, I enjoyed the vast majority of Rihanna's singles (notable, deeply-despised exceptions are "Unfaithful" and "Take a Bow"); and with the release of Rated R -- her first album post-abuse -- I hoped that she would recreate the magic of Good Girl Gone Bad. But with each new single, I feel as though the two of us are growing further and further apart. Even the "hit" that everyone else loved, "Rude Boy," seemed to be lacking something. It's as if right as Rihanna is about to produce an aural orgasm, she pulls out and the song is over, leaving me sad and unsatisfied.

Now we're getting acquainted with her new single, "Te Amo."

I suppose Rihanna (and her record label) was hoping "Te Amo" would be her "La Isla Bonita," "Please Stay," or even "Alejandro." But instead of some saucy Latin rhythms, the life has been sucked out of the Latin beats, processed, and then arranged under lesbianic lyrics that could have poured from Katy Perry's pen of mediocrity.

In all honesty, I don't think "Te Amo" is an awful song -- it's just mediocre. In fact, I've been meaning to write about it for 2 weeks now, reminding myself to do so every time it comes on the radio, but as soon as the song ends I quickly forget about it and my musings escape me.

What disappoints me most is that, even though I haven't enjoyed Rated R, musically it has been forward-thinking and different. "Te Amo," on the other hand, relies solely on formulas to achieve success. Every pop star under the moon has mined Latin music for a few choice melodies and beats, and rarely is it ever successful (Kylie's "Please Stay" is also one of my least favorite singles). But what disappointments me most is that Rihanna agreed to the lyrical girl-on-girl action that is proving consistently popular on the radio.

Madonna's lasting but less realized legacy might actually be the propagation of lesbian imagery by female pop stars. For Madge and Britney it's old hat by now (seeing as how they started this revolution); but look no further than Xtina's latest Madonna-inspired video, "Not Myself Tonight," and you'll see that even seasoned pop stars are resorting to old, exploitative tricks to attract attention and fans.

The ethics surrounding the use of lesbian imagery to further one's own heterosexual career has been debated to death, primarily thanks to Katy Perry's unapologetically homophobic song, "I Kissed a Girl" (the cousin of her even more homophobic first single, "Ur So Gay"). But with Middle America living out their repressed same-sex desires vicariously through female singers, who can really blame the record companies for resorting to some tried and true methods in an effort to make a buck?

Something I will commend Rihanna on that Katy Perry and Britney seem to have no concept of is the emotional, rather than sexual, connection behind many same-sex attractions. Whereas Ms. Perry is willing to kiss and dump girls all night long, "Te Amo" tells the story of Rihanna struggling to reconcile her female friend's feelings of affection while simultaneously letting her down gently. This is something truly new to the lesbianic genre of pop music: recognition of genuine and legitimate same-sex attraction, followed by the realization that it's not something to fear or ridicule.

We'll have to wait and see if the public is ready for a less raunchy song about same-sex hook-ups, or if they're content to simply go on seeking Amy.

There Goes the Gayborhood

2010-04-28T14:09:00.002-04:00

My summer calendar is filling up fast!

It seems that we're in for a treat next week: Another celebrity is supposedly coming out of the closet on the Wednesday, May 5 episode of The View. However, this revelation is supposedly so shocking, and the celeb so surprising, that not even the ladies of The View know who it is yet (or if they do, they're not talking). It is also rumored that this celeb will grace the cover of People Magazine the following week.

But one thing's for sure: We can eliminate Ricky Martin from the running.

My queer and Hollywood gossip sites have been been going nuts this week trying to figure out who this soon-to-be new gay leader is. All the fuss started when Ricky Martin came out and "blind items" began popping up claiming that this closeted celeb was quite upset that his imminent outing was being overshadowed by the Latin singer.

Despite male pronouns used in the blind items, Queen Latifah is hotly tipped to be the person in question. She has a new movie coming out in mid-May, Just Wright, so the timing for her coming out as a means of promoting her movie would be, ahem, just right. However, Just Wright is being advertised as a romantic comedy and I'm not sure Fox would be pleased if its leading lady comes out as a lesbian only days before the release of her heterosexual rom-com. But maybe Queen would be making a point that openly LGBTQ actors can believably play straight characters.

Aside from Queen, the list of other possibilities is relatively boring -- a collection of B and C-list entertainers who would be coming out solely for the purpose of stepping into the spotlight one more time and [hopefully] making a few dollars.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is what Ellen DeGeneres had in mind when she came out in 1997.

It's absolutely amazing that more and more stars have come out since Ellen -- Lance Bass, Neil Patrick Harris, Rosie O'Donnell, Clay Aiken, Cynthia Nixon, Meredith Baxter, Kelly McGillis, Wanda Sykes, Ricky Martin -- but most of them did so after the peak of their careers and usually in conjunction with the release of an autobiography (NPH, Wanda Sykes, and Rosie the exceptions). And despite D-list status, many graced the cover of People to describe their plight and be congratulated on their bravery; but post-Dancing With the Stars, they've nearly all faded back into obscurity -- so what effect has their coming out had other than increasing their bank accounts?

Perhaps that's why I, like so many others, am hoping that Queen Latifah is the next person to step out of the closet. She would be the biggest star to take the plunge, and in theory, have the greatest impact. And as a person of color, she would hopefully serve as a powerful role model to a generation of young people who have grown up thinking that a "gay" identity is a "white privilege."

But we will all know in a week's time.

The Real L Word?

2010-04-27T17:53:00.002-04:00

Call your cable company and set your DVRs because on June 20th television will change forever!

That is, of course, the day that Showtime premieres its latest, cutting-edge series, The Real L Word.

Apparently Ilene Chaiken, creator of the long-running dramatic series The L Word, was unable to come up with another original idea; and since her spin-off, The Farm, was rejected by Showtime, she's focused her energy on filming a supposedly real life version of her show.

Rarely do I watch a television or movie preview and ask, "Why?" but that is all I could come up with upon watching the clip above.

What is the point of this show? Although not an avid fan of The L Word, I worked my way through the first two seasons on DVD and enjoyed my time with the characters. But forgive me, but naming a reality show after a dramatic, fictionalized television show does not immediately make me want to watch it. I know Bravo capitalized on Desperate Housewives with its Real Housewives franchise, but those women weren't cast to mimic Teri Hatcher and Eva Longoria.

The Real L Word seems more like fictionalized reality than anything currently found on MTV or VH1. These "real lesbians" seem to mirror the original L Word's casting so much that they seem to be fully cognizant of the parts they've been hired to play. My favorite part of the preview is when Whitney describes how, by pure coincidence, the moment filming began her life was filled with girl drama. As though the presence of cameras and producers prodding her to be interesting weren't the catalysts that led to this juicy girl-on-girl drama.

One of the main differences between the reality show and the original dramatic series is that the drama filled a void that needed to be filled. The L Word debuted when Queer as Folk was midway through its run and lesbians were (and still are) severely lacking in on-screen representation. Since the show's debut, however, we've had the launch of two 24/7 LGBTQ cable networks, Logo and here!; and Bravo, ABC, and Fox constantly battle it out over who can most successfully queer primetime. To me, The Real L Word just doesn't seem to fit in. And given Showtime's history of high-quality programming (Weeds, Californication, United States of Tara), I'm almost sad to see them stoop to such a low level.

But hey, lesbians gotta eat too.

Nutty Fandom

2010-04-26T17:40:00.000-04:00

I have an odd fascination with YouTube vlogger, NuttyMadam3575 (real name Emma Clark). Like many, I first became aware of NuttyMadam via her infamous video addressing critics of the fourth novel in the Twilight Saga, Breaking Dawn. Since then, whenever I'm feeling down or need a chuckle, I troll through NuttyMadam's videos and watch her latest commentary or reaction video.

Despite the campy humor that she [sometimes inadvertently] brings to her videos, NuttyMadam occasionally does make rather serious, hard-to-watch videos about her personal life. And a video I came across today seems to fall somewhere in between her Breaking Dawn tirade and one of the videos where she discusses her personal heartaches.

For those of you without the patience to watch all eight minutes, NuttyMadam takes time to address a recent advice column (a la Dear Abby) in which the writer advises an obsessed Twilight fan to seek professional help. Madam ends up becoming an unintentional gay marriage advocate, preaching that no one has the right to decry another person's love or obsession so long as it doesn't physically hurt anybody. She also acknowledges that she is an obsessed Twilight fan, but does not consider it to be unhealthy.

She does say that so-called "Cullenites" -- which I had never heard of before -- might take the obsession a bit too far.

I find NuttyMadam's defense of her obsession an interesting conundrum and I have a hard time deciding whether or not I agree with her declaration that such devotion is not unhealthy. On one hand, yes, to each their own and that's great. This is pretty much the underlying principle of the fight for LGBTQ equality. However, as someone who was obsessed with a segment of pop culture, I'm not sure if I entirely benefited from that obsession.

Longtime readers will know that I am an ardent X-Files fan. An X-Phile, if you will. When I was a teenager, I ran an AOL-based X-Files newsletter with over 1,000 members; a fairly popular fansite ("Eric's X Files Page"); and absorbed an inordinate amount of information about the show and its stars. Barely a word escaped my lips that wasn't somehow X-Files-related.

Today, I remain a fan of the series and still support Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny in all of their endeavors (btw, I saw The Joneses over the weekend and it was pretty good), but I'm actually quite happy that I'm beyond that intense fandom I experienced in my youth. It's not that I'm ashamed or embarrassed of it; I just don't like being so dependent on a television program (or, likewise, movie or book) to have fun. Even other pop culture phenomenons that I partake in -- Harry Potter, Lost, Lady GaGa -- have never reached the obsessive devotion that I felt about X-Files -- and on some level, that has been a conscious decision (or maturing) on my part. For me, I'd rather have X-Files or something else be a part of my life, not the sole reason of my being.

And this is where I have trouble reconciling NuttyMadam's ardent defense of her fellow Twihard; because I don't believe that my X-Files obsession would have been entirely healthy or beneficial as I moved forward and grew. But then again, I suppose that is also Madam's point -- for her and millions of others, it is enough for them. Same with the notoriously decried World of Warcraft fans or Trekkies. And like many fans, my love for X-Files probably provided me with some emotional support that was otherwise not being met (I'm sure psychologists would tell me it has something to do with me coming to terms with my sexuality).

But I'm still not sure if that fandom was or is the most beneficial.