Remember that charming game where you have to shoot down gay men because they're supposedly going to rape you in the woods? I do! And I'm sure many others have the misfortune to remember that lovely game as well.
However, the Georgia based site originally hosting the game, Uzinagaz, just removed the game and issued this statement: "Our games are not politically correct. They're aimed at teenagers (12-18) and it's true that they're of a juvenile humour. I realise now that this one in particularly could be found shocking, but I believe that you should be able to make this kind of joke in the name of freedom of speech. Incidentally, not everyone in the gay community was supportive of banning the game."
Not much of an apology...I'm still all for free speech, but when it strips a group or person of their agency and incites violence against them, I don't think it should be protected. If you want to have a game called, "find the Bible passage admonishing homosexuals", that's great. And actually...
Biblical Tip of the Day: There are only 6 passages in the big, bad Bible that supposedly reprimand homosexuals but around 362 reprimanding heterosexuals. But rest easy, heterosexuals, God does not hate you (or homosexuals, for that matter). God apparently just has much more to say about how much you're likely to piss him off. Apparently, homosexuals can only piss him off 6 ways...instead of 362.
Anyway, a group called Gay Armenia is the one that pressured the site into removing the game. Not the UN, not GLAAD, or the HRC. Nope. It's cool though. The game has only been around since, what, 2002? So it's understandable. Besides, it only took Gay Armenia and I'm guessing countless strongly words emails 7 years to get it pulled. I mean, where would the dramatic tension be if any of the aforementioned groups had actually cared and stepped in?
So props to Gay Armenia for standing up and actually doing something to not only stop more affirmations of anti-gay violence, but for making the gaming world a little less sucky. That's one small step...oh wait...it's just one small step. But it is a step.
The Timothy Plan is a "Christian financial planning" firm which "avoids investing in companies that are involved in practices contrary to Judeo-Christian principles. Our goal is to recapture traditional American values. We are America's first pro-life, pro-family, biblically-based mutual fund group." Intrigued yet? Their claim is that, "If you are concerned with the moral issues (abortion, pörnography, anti-family entertainment, non-married lifestyles, alcohol, tobacco and gambling) that are destroying children and families you have come to the right place." Among the services they offer, they produce a report on video games and the "Top Offenders" of games which, apparently, lead down the long hard road to a hellish disregard and potential destruction of the coveted traditional American family. Truly, I wish that I could hate them more than I do. Their mission goes against my own. Their purpose in existing runs counter to anything I can really get behind. At the same time, however, it's difficult for me to hate them wholly or with complete vengeance as they feel that their mission is right...just as I feel my mission is. Unlike other standard Christian Right organizations, they seem to realize that their particular values aren't necessarily for everyone, stating regarding the video game report, "This is purely meant to inform parents who are concerned with the moral content/issues contained in video games and make available to them information which is not easily found."
That being said, I still feel that Christian Right values, in the variety of forms they take, are nigh completely conduits of hate. Whether the organization or individual itself pronounces their mission or views, through materials or speech, in more obviously hateful ways or not, hate still lies behind all of it. Fear, too. And, given all the recent activity in same-sex marriage/union laws in the past couple of weeks (with Iowa, Vermont, Colorado, and Washington DC - Read more at Huffington Post, I feel it is worth looking at now - even though the Timothy report came out last December. What do seemingly innocuous organizations contribute to hate? If The Timothy Plan takes pains to state that they don't mean to tell others what to believe, how can this be so bad?
So while I was checking an old email account on yahoo, I noticed a story in the little news section. It read: Transgender Wife gets 4 years for killing husband. And I thought to myself, what does her being transgendered have to even do with that? But I clicked it anyway and searched again for it to see what other news sources had to say about it. This actually made for an even more interesting discovery. If you search for this story on the MSNBC website it says "Transgender wife gets 4 years for killing a man". But on most other news sites of not so self proclaimed leftist views the title reads that she killed her husband. Kinda strange. It is possible that the only reason the story made national news was because it involved a transgendered person and LGBTQ (which I'll refer to as queer after this) tensions are high awaiting the California Supreme Court decision ? But what I think- and you can call me a pessimist- is that this story has national coverage because it paints a transgendered person in a negative light.
People are talking the internet over about Thom Creed, the new superhero coming to town. Stan Lee, of Marvel fame, is apparently creating what is being called the "world's first gay superhero." Of course, there is the orientation of Bat Girl - but this stands out because Thom Creed will take to the screen as the main character in a British T.V. series.
Super!
...probably.
And for the big surprise? Lee's efforts are being met with a lot of contempt. Bizarre! You'll have to forgive my sarcasm. Blatant bigotry against the LGBTQ community is so prevalent that it somehow still blows my mind. It's the openness of it, really.
"MCCAIN at RightPundits for example, explains what Thom's superpowers will be:
"Rumor is that Thom Creed can bend his wrist which will tastefully redecorate the interior of a building, causing momentary confusion among the bad guys while he binds them in chains and leather. Creed’s cape is by Versace, while he forgoes the usual hood for an impenetrable layer of gel. Like superman’s phone booth, Thom’s superpowers are at full strength after emerging from a closet."
Wow. Thanks for that enlightening speculation. MCCAIN follows up with, "Just kidding. You know." Oh, okay. Well, at least the humor is original and smart.
According to the Daily Mash, "Thom Creed will be a New York interior designer with incredible superpowers including an ability to pick out the perfect cushion and transform even the dullest of parties with his infectious personality." Providing this picture: 
he won't, they say, look as "gay as Batman."
I guess originality is forfeit when employing stereotypes of the other for humor. I'll have to take note of that.
In a more serious tone, Janet Shan of The Hinterland Gazette claims that, "The issue I have with this is why do we need to define the sexuality of our superheroes? I don't think children are wondering why we don't have a gay superhero or a Mormon superhero, for that matter. Is Warner Brothers next to unveil a gay character? Who cares if Bugs Bunny is gay because he wears dresses in some cartoons? It is sad that we have moved into an age where being politically correct means more than just letting kids be kids."
I get it. But being "politically correct" should mean being inclusive. Growing up LGBTQ in a completely heteronormative society means growing up feeling alone, isolated, and freakish or abnormal. Why is it important to identify characters sexuality? Because sexuality is constantly being defined. Namely, heterosexuality is constantly identified - families on TV and movies, superheros, video game characters, books - the whole gambit - includes heteros. It isn't as though children are allowed to learn that gay is ok in school. The education system frowns on this, parents rebel against it, and teachers are uncomfortable with it. Keeping children ignorant means teaching them hate and bigotry. They are left instead with the stereotypical and demeaning images of LGBTQ and deprived of any positive images - such as superheros. Sexuality has been thoroughly defined: Heterosexual is normal. Anything outside of that is so freakish that it shouldn't even be talked about. I just never understand what isn't obvious about that.
Apparently after Obama was elected (months ago, I realize) there has been a rise in hate crimes. As reported at http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11890:
"Signs hang on the office door of University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston, Thursday, as Houston posted a message against racism after someone defaced a previous poster of Barack Obama and his family with a death threat and racial slur. (AP Photo)
By JESSE WASHINGTON
Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.
Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America."
The report highlights a few of these incidents. There have been more - of that I'm certain.
Worry not because according to this site, these are all "isolated incidents" from people without any real power. To recite an oft used expression, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." I simply can't see how an entire history of racism in this nation can be ignored by stating that incidents such as these are isolated. To me, it is clear that they are not isolated, but are cumulative. Isolated incidents of racism (or sexism, heterosexism, etc) are impossible because they reflect a complete history of such actions and the beliefs and fear that motivate them.
While on a family visit, I was asked if I had seen the new quarter. I sighed and stated that I hadn't. Then, I was presented with a picture of a quarter with Washington's face colored black with a Sharpie. I can't remember what else was said though I believe a joke was made about his assassination. Classy. I've been spoiled. Typically, I surround myself with liberal-minded folk. Add to this the "Barack the Magic Negro" song:
and it becomes difficult (in my mind) to pin racist sentiments and actions on "isolated" individuals with little real power. There is power in individuals banding together. Could Hitler have ever caused the mass persecution of Jews and homosexuals by himself? Of course not. He relied on mass sentiment and used fear to feed hate to the masses. To me, this seems to be painfully obvious. I suppose, though, that if people were to acknowledge the cumulative nature of racism (and other isms), it would mean calling to question their own privilege.
XML Feeds