CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
It always takes such courage and self-sacrifice to "out" ... someone else. That's mostly what I thought as I read some of the recent bits-n-pieces.
ARE YOU 'OUT' YET? I'LL TAKE FAMOUS CORREPSONDENT FOR $1,000, CHRIS!
Last I checked, correspondents don't travel with diplomatic immunity. I suggest that some of those who would substitute their judgment for others so readily ought to spend a month on assignment in a country in which being openly homosexual is considered 'a corruption of the public morals' and punishable in extraordinary ways. In other words, many will doubt their facts, but few their opinion?
ARE YOU 'OUT' YET? IT'S MY WORLD.
Is it just me, or do some of these writers seem to be so dis-integrated from the pressures and diversity of the wider world, the one outside the saponified bubble of the 'for-gays-by-gays', self-anointed juicers? For starters, when was the last time any of them had a job where they were outnumbered 20-to-one or tried to make "openly gay" really work as a strategy for advancement in a intensely competitive field? Can they never imagine that someone might throw their business to another vendor, pass over someone for promotion, or call out, "Hey, Doris, set up an exclusive press interview, but not with that gay-guy who keeps calling. I'm going to get grief if I do this with him." Who among them has had to put up lately with the endless referencing, "Yeah, she's our lesbian associate; but don't worry, she's the best tax lawyer we've got."
ARE YOU 'OUT' YET? HEY, DON'T BLAME THE SERVICERS!
And even when they do take note of those tensions, how facile is it when they let themselves off the hook with, "Oh, it's just good tabloid dish, and you LIKE it, don't deny it." Yeah, I can understand the taboild press, but I don't find much of a worthy excuse in its gross self-indulgence, let alone those who have tacit pretenses that they are doing honorable service by repeating who was seen where, in what position, and who whispered what to whom before they got on a plane.
Too much of it comes across like school girls trying to own their "celebrities", by having a little piece all to themselves or something. Or worse, "rescuing them", but, via their selectivity, mostly stroking a prurient need to say, "Hey, look at me, I know famous people!" To which I repeat the old joke, "A renowned author and her lesbian partner walk into a bar. Look, I'm really busy with my own life, so I could not care less about that."
ARE YOU 'OUT' YET? THE RELUCTANT 'ROLE MODEL'
Sure, every young, LGBT-destined individual can use more role models, arguably, and best they be open. But, if someone does not want to be one, of what use is a reluctant role model? At best, their hesitancy will cause them to trip up, sooner or later. Best to wait for when they are ready, yes? Besides, what if a young kid decides that Tiger Woods or Peter Pan or Richie Rollins is his or her 'hero'? In other words, the world doesn't divide neatly, so the more general challenge of how to build a broadly supportive, nondiscriminatory environment is probably the more apt one.
ARE YOU 'OUT' YET? MERE EXISTENCE IS NOT ADVOCACY
Some say that being out is an important form of advocacy. Perhaps. But isn't that also the very same formulation that has been used to keep LGBT people away from leadership roles and more besides? It seems odd to give power to the very premise that you might want to refute.
ARE YOU 'OUT' YET? COMMUNITY BUILDING CHAMPIONS
What to make of the ever evolving, non-accountable postures of these Community Building Champions (CBCs)? Do you find the 'gay community' a warm, welcoming, resource-supportive group or do you find that there are an equal number of people who are taking notes, just in case you don't live up to their standards? Would more people 'come out' in healthy ways if there was a heartfelt community with great depth, not only of respective and protective flair, or if there were more official sounding CBCs, with their imperatives tied up in little robin-blue ribbons, of course?
