Gay Pride

[peekint]

The most pride I ever felt as a gay men was when I heard Harvey Milk make a political speech and then I got to meet him, shake his hand, and speak to him for a few moments. I thought this man was the closest we were going to get to a gay Martin Luther King. He had a camera store on Castro Street before he went into grass roots politics. But he was assassinated and now we have rainbow flag coffee cups. Oh well ... Where are our leaders? Queer Eye for the Straight Guy doesn't cut it.

And neither does Barney Frank. He opposed Gavin Newsom's February 2004 challenge to the California DOMA ... with leaders like that, who needs to be oppressed by someone else?

[peekint]

In the news today I saw two references to gay pride events and a minute or two of video coverage from each. Pretty much the same stuff you see from time to time. In one some right-wing skinheads were attacking the participants and in the other it looked like scenes from some grotesque carnival.

Most groups, usually ethnic or racial, that have pride events or pride parades, appear to try to show important people from that group or important accomplishments by members of the group or demonstrate talents of members, even if there may be a light-hearted theme to whole affair.

Whenever I see gay pride events they seem to be made up of half-naked guys and/or people dressed up in freakish costumes with sequins & feathered boas or with an inch or two of make-up smeared on their faces making them look like clowns.

As fun as some of these things may or may not be, do you feel pride in the way you are being identified? If you are gay, do you want others to immediately think of you as being someone who spends his time dressed up like a side-show attraction? Do you think such things, especially if they are advertised as an expression of Gay Pride, positively contribute to a better understanding and acceptance of gays?

Do a bit of research on how the gay movement really got kickstarted ... then try to deny those people their place in Pride. It's the semi-closeted shirt and tie (or dockers and topsiders) crowd that have let us all down by NOT getting out there and being seen.

HERE HERE! Cheers to the Queers at Stonewall! If it weren't for them, all the closet cases sweating about the ruckus the queens make wouldn't be able to steal away to the secret saunas and dark bars to get their "it's only my business" jollies.

[lannarebirth]

I used to live on Clarendon many years ago and would drive through the Castro everyday. My observation is, it was less about freedom, than it was about exibitionism. Living in a ghetto of their own making, rules that might apply elsewhere were ignored. Not unlike Hunters Point in a way. Aside from that, there's no question that the many gay DINKs helped to beautify and regentrify The City but a lot of low/middle income earners were forced out of the city they were born in, in the process.

As a former DINK (Dual Income No Kids) from San Francisco, I think you've got it all wrong.

Yes, we had a ghetto there, and it's been fascinating over the years watching it melt like ice cream on the sidewalk as it has become less necessary to "circle the wagons". And "circle the wagons" we did in those days. We circled the wagons when the police came crashing into the Elephant Walk bar on 18th and Castro breaking windows and heads. We circled the wagons when on Hallowe'en the kids came from the avenues to throw insults, rocks and bottles. We circled the wagons when AIDS started killing us off in droves and no one knew why or how to stop it.

I think your comparison to Hunter's Point is very telling. You suggest that we all moved to the Castro so we could S88K and F88k with impunity while making loads of money by decorating the run down houses of poor suckers who didn't know a valence from a vulva. The parallel with Hunters point, I guess, is that Afro-American folks in the projects choose to ghettoize themselves so they can do drugs and have lots of crime without Honky interfering?

I'm sensing you have a rather unusual world view. Or perhaps, it is way too usual and that's what makes the world the place it is today.

I don't think my world view is that unusual. I'm not anti-gay or anti-black, I'm anti ghetto and anti nonassimilating.

I grew up in The City and I miss it's melting pot feeling and it's neighborhoods. The Castro used to be a great neighborhood. Now it's a juicebar, a coffee shop, a florist, a hairdresser, a gym, a gay bar repeat this pattern up and down every street.

I was still drinking when last I lived in San Francisco, and the gay bars were the nearest to my house. Aside from the "glory holes" in the bathroom what surprised me was how normal most are. That's not their public face, nor the face they seem to wish to display publically.

Anyhow, I'm human. I was just lamenting how the city I once loved holds no interest for me anymore. Nothing personal.

[cophen]

In the UK we didn't have all the excitement of Stonewall. We had a civil servant called John Wolfenden chair a committee which wrote a report in 1957 saying poofery ought to be decriminalised. 10 years later we had an MP called Leo Abse (see my obituary post) who took a bill through Parliament which became the 1967 Sexual Offences Act which legalised sex between consenting males aged 21 and over in private. Not the complete dog's danglers but a good start. I can't imagine gay riots in the UK in the 60s. They'd ruin too many suede shoes

[peekint]

In the UK we didn't have all the excitement of Stonewall. We had a civil servant called John Wolfenden chair a committee which wrote a report in 1957 saying poofery ought to be decriminalised. 10 years later we had an MP called Leo Abse (see my obituary post) who took a bill through Parliament which became the 1967 Sexual Offences Act which legalised sex between consenting males aged 21 and over in private. Not the complete dog's danglers but a good start. I can't imagine gay riots in the UK in the 60s. They'd ruin too many suede shoes

I don't in any way make this post to demean the memory of Leo Abse. I had the profound pleasure of meeting him not too many years ago and there is no doubt that he was one of the most principled men in politics I have ever had the pleasure of encountering. Though quite straight, he was a great believer in fairness.

On the other hand, what Mr. Abse was championing in the UK was the legalization of private sexual acts. It was specifically aimed at reducing the gay blackmail scenario which had become epidemic in Britain by the end of the 1950s (the movie Victim was a landmark in exposing the damage it was doing not only to Gay people, but to England itself).

The Stonewall folks were rioting as a result of consistent mistreatment by the police based on much less specific "obscenity" and "morality" laws. The riot did not have the aim of overturning those laws, which are still on the books for the most part, but rather to object to the unfairness to applying them to mere congregations of individuals who were, at that time, called "deviant".

[peekint]

...

I think your comparison to Hunter's Point is very telling. You suggest that we all moved to the Castro so we could S88K and F88k with impunity while making loads of money by decorating the run down houses of poor suckers who didn't know a valence from a vulva. The parallel with Hunters point, I guess, is that Afro-American folks in the projects choose to ghettoize themselves so they can do drugs and have lots of crime without Honky interfering?

I'm sensing you have a rather unusual world view. Or perhaps, it is way too usual and that's what makes the world the place it is today.

====

I don't think my world view is that unusual. I'm not anti-gay or anti-black, I'm anti ghetto and anti nonassimilating.

I grew up in The City and I miss it's melting pot feeling and it's neighborhoods. The Castro used to be a great neighborhood. Now it's a juicebar, a coffee shop, a florist, a hairdresser, a gym, a gay bar repeat this pattern up and down every street.

I was still drinking when last I lived in San Francisco, and the gay bars were the nearest to my house. Aside from the "glory holes" in the bathroom what surprised me was how normal most are. That's not their public face, nor the face they seem to wish to display publically.

Anyhow, I'm human. I was just lamenting how the city I once loved holds no interest for me anymore. Nothing personal.

I'm still having trouble understanding your ghetto observation, especially the comparison of Castro to Hunters Point.

How are Castro and Hunters Point different from, say, Hillsborough? Is it because folks chose to live in Hillsborough for different reasons? They seem very similar to me - to be with people like themselves, to "circle the wagons" against those who might do them harm, and to facilitate social networking.

(For the non SF'ers, Hillsborough is a rich suburb south of the City which is made up of 5-100million dollar homes populated primarily by White tech executives, and Hunters Point was a poor African American neighborhood.)

Or is it that you don't compare the Castro to Hunter's Point because the folks who live there are somehow not as "acceptable" as those who coalesce in Hillsborough?

Now, you've added non-assimilation as one of the causes you are promoting, a very Republican concept which goes like this: "If they would just all Look and Act like us, we'd have NO trouble accepting them. Why do they have to be different?"

Help me understand your point of view. Though you say it is innocuous, it is indeed made of the very observations and viewpoints that are historically the tools and implements of discrimination and the excuses of exclusion...

[lannarebirth]

...

I think your comparison to Hunter's Point is very telling. You suggest that we all moved to the Castro so we could S88K and F88k with impunity while making loads of money by decorating the run down houses of poor suckers who didn't know a valence from a vulva. The parallel with Hunters point, I guess, is that Afro-American folks in the projects choose to ghettoize themselves so they can do drugs and have lots of crime without Honky interfering?

I'm sensing you have a rather unusual world view. Or perhaps, it is way too usual and that's what makes the world the place it is today.

====

I don't think my world view is that unusual. I'm not anti-gay or anti-black, I'm anti ghetto and anti nonassimilating.

I grew up in The City and I miss it's melting pot feeling and it's neighborhoods. The Castro used to be a great neighborhood. Now it's a juicebar, a coffee shop, a florist, a hairdresser, a gym, a gay bar repeat this pattern up and down every street.

I was still drinking when last I lived in San Francisco, and the gay bars were the nearest to my house. Aside from the "glory holes" in the bathroom what surprised me was how normal most are. That's not their public face, nor the face they seem to wish to display publically.

Anyhow, I'm human. I was just lamenting how the city I once loved holds no interest for me anymore. Nothing personal.

I'm still having trouble understanding your ghetto observation, especially the comparison of Castro to Hunters Point.

How are Castro and Hunters Point different from, say, Hillsborough? Is it because folks chose to live in Hillsborough for different reasons? They seem very similar to me - to be with people like themselves, to "circle the wagons" against those who might do them harm, and to facilitate social networking.

(For the non SF'ers, Hillsborough is a rich suburb south of the City which is made up of 5-100million dollar homes populated primarily by White tech executives, and Hunters Point was a poor African American neighborhood.)

Or is it that you don't compare the Castro to Hunter's Point because the folks who live there are somehow not as "acceptable" as those who coalesce in Hillsborough?

I compared the two because the behaviour that is acceptable there would not be condoned in the wider society. Things such as gangbanging ,drug dealing in Hunters Point or walking around with a leash on your dick and your ass hanging out the back of your chaps in the Castro.

Now, you've added non-assimilation as one of the causes you are promoting, I think if you read it again you'll notice I said just the opposite. a very Republican concept which goes like this: "If they would just all Look and Act like us, we'd have NO trouble accepting them. Why do they have to be different?"

Help me understand your point of view. Though you say it is innocuous, it is indeed made of the very observations and viewpoints that are historically the tools and implements of discrimination and the excuses of exclusion...

Now you're being ironic.

[twschw]

...

I think your comparison to Hunter's Point is very telling. You suggest that we all moved to the Castro so we could S88K and F88k with impunity while making loads of money by decorating the run down houses of poor suckers who didn't know a valence from a vulva. The parallel with Hunters point, I guess, is that Afro-American folks in the projects choose to ghettoize themselves so they can do drugs and have lots of crime without Honky interfering?

I'm sensing you have a rather unusual world view. Or perhaps, it is way too usual and that's what makes the world the place it is today.

====

I don't think my world view is that unusual. I'm not anti-gay or anti-black, I'm anti ghetto and anti nonassimilating.

I grew up in The City and I miss it's melting pot feeling and it's neighborhoods. The Castro used to be a great neighborhood. Now it's a juicebar, a coffee shop, a florist, a hairdresser, a gym, a gay bar repeat this pattern up and down every street.

I was still drinking when last I lived in San Francisco, and the gay bars were the nearest to my house. Aside from the "glory holes" in the bathroom what surprised me was how normal most are. That's not their public face, nor the face they seem to wish to display publically.

Anyhow, I'm human. I was just lamenting how the city I once loved holds no interest for me anymore. Nothing personal.

I'm still having trouble understanding your ghetto observation, especially the comparison of Castro to Hunters Point.

How are Castro and Hunters Point different from, say, Hillsborough? Is it because folks chose to live in Hillsborough for different reasons? They seem very similar to me - to be with people like themselves, to "circle the wagons" against those who might do them harm, and to facilitate social networking.

(For the non SF'ers, Hillsborough is a rich suburb south of the City which is made up of 5-100million dollar homes populated primarily by White tech executives, and Hunters Point was a poor African American neighborhood.)

Or is it that you don't compare the Castro to Hunter's Point because the folks who live there are somehow not as "acceptable" as those who coalesce in Hillsborough?

I compared the two because the behaviour that is acceptable there would not be condoned in the wider society. Things such as gangbanging ,drug dealing in Hunters Point or walking around with a leash on your dick and your ass hanging out the back of your chaps in the Castro.

Now, you've added non-assimilation as one of the causes you are promoting, I think if you read it again you'll notice I said just the opposite. a very Republican concept which goes like this: "If they would just all Look and Act like us, we'd have NO trouble accepting them. Why do they have to be different?"

Help me understand your point of view. Though you say it is innocuous, it is indeed made of the very observations and viewpoints that are historically the tools and implements of discrimination and the excuses of exclusion...

Now you're being ironic.

Do you know what "anti nonassimilating" means? Now you're being ludicrous.

[lannarebirth]

...

I think your comparison to Hunter's Point is very telling. You suggest that we all moved to the Castro so we could S88K and F88k with impunity while making loads of money by decorating the run down houses of poor suckers who didn't know a valence from a vulva. The parallel with Hunters point, I guess, is that Afro-American folks in the projects choose to ghettoize themselves so they can do drugs and have lots of crime without Honky interfering?

I'm sensing you have a rather unusual world view. Or perhaps, it is way too usual and that's what makes the world the place it is today.

====

I don't think my world view is that unusual. I'm not anti-gay or anti-black, I'm anti ghetto and anti nonassimilating.

I grew up in The City and I miss it's melting pot feeling and it's neighborhoods. The Castro used to be a great neighborhood. Now it's a juicebar, a coffee shop, a florist, a hairdresser, a gym, a gay bar repeat this pattern up and down every street.

I was still drinking when last I lived in San Francisco, and the gay bars were the nearest to my house. Aside from the "glory holes" in the bathroom what surprised me was how normal most are. That's not their public face, nor the face they seem to wish to display publically.

Anyhow, I'm human. I was just lamenting how the city I once loved holds no interest for me anymore. Nothing personal.

I'm still having trouble understanding your ghetto observation, especially the comparison of Castro to Hunters Point.

How are Castro and Hunters Point different from, say, Hillsborough? Is it because folks chose to live in Hillsborough for different reasons? They seem very similar to me - to be with people like themselves, to "circle the wagons" against those who might do them harm, and to facilitate social networking.

(For the non SF'ers, Hillsborough is a rich suburb south of the City which is made up of 5-100million dollar homes populated primarily by White tech executives, and Hunters Point was a poor African American neighborhood.)

Or is it that you don't compare the Castro to Hunter's Point because the folks who live there are somehow not as "acceptable" as those who coalesce in Hillsborough?

I compared the two because the behaviour that is acceptable there would not be condoned in the wider society. Things such as gangbanging ,drug dealing in Hunters Point or walking around with a leash on your dick and your ass hanging out the back of your chaps in the Castro.

Now, you've added non-assimilation as one of the causes you are promoting, I think if you read it again you'll notice I said just the opposite. a very Republican concept which goes like this: "If they would just all Look and Act like us, we'd have NO trouble accepting them. Why do they have to be different?"

Help me understand your point of view. Though you say it is innocuous, it is indeed made of the very observations and viewpoints that are historically the tools and implements of discrimination and the excuses of exclusion...

Now you're being ironic.

Do you know what "anti nonassimilating" means? Now you're being ludicrous.

In the context of this post it means to be against those who choose not to assimilate but instead choose to inhabit defacto segregated ghettoes.

[peekint]

Do you know what "anti nonassimilating" means? Now you're being ludicrous.

In the context of this post it means to be against those who choose not to assimilate but instead choose to inhabit defacto segregated ghettoes.

I couldn't find any comment on the Hillsborough ghetto question I asked, but I think that last sentence might be it. You see, there IS a difference between Hunters Point and the Castro, and Hillsborough.

You've said '...[they] choose to inhabit defacto segregated ghettoes'. Perhaps the Hillsborough ghetto is populated by choice, but not Hunters Point or the Castro.

I infer from your argument that African Americans swarm to live in Hunters point so they can deal crack, and that Gays inhabit the Castro so they can flaunt their scrotum rings in public.

You confuse appearance with substance, the chicken with the egg.

I'll assume you are arguing for the sake of argument, because I can't believe that you really don't know that people live in Hunters Point because they can't afford to live elsewhere (even up on Clarendon where you had the luxury of living). The result of that poverty, unemployment, or whatever, may be there are a lot of crack dealers. You try to disparage all the inhabitants by deliberately confusing the outcome with the genesis.

Likewise, in the Castro, unless you're completely ignorant of what it means to be Gay in the USA (especially in the 70's or 80's), you know that Gays grouped in the Castro because it was one of the few places we could safely even talk about being Gay without being harassed, harangued, or harmed physically. Certainly, the result may be that some individuals, once safety was tasted, chose to ignore all bounds of (straight) decorum. But again, that was a result of the congregation, not the origin of it.

So, I think we've about hashed THIS one to death in a forum about Gay Pride. It's clear when you like to say "I'm not anti... ,but ..." you are doing your best to justify your own prejudices and dislikes. We all have them. It would be much more honest just to admit them to yourself and either live with them or examine them. It least then you'd have to deal with your guilt, and we wouldn't.

[PeaceBlondie]

I agree that "... I think we've about hashed THIS one to death in a forum about Gay Pride." I suggest you two guys take the o9ff-topic discussion about how neighborhoods get regentrified to SFrisco, suburban CMai, etc. But, thanks for the comments.

[lannarebirth]

Do you know what "anti nonassimilating" means? Now you're being ludicrous.

In the context of this post it means to be against those who choose not to assimilate but instead choose to inhabit defacto segregated ghettoes.

I couldn't find any comment on the Hillsborough ghetto question I asked, but I think that last sentence might be it. You see, there IS a difference between Hunters Point and the Castro, and Hillsborough.

You've said '...[they] choose to inhabit defacto segregated ghettoes'. Perhaps the Hillsborough ghetto is populated by choice, but not Hunters Point or the Castro.

I infer from your argument I'm not arguing at all. I've only responded to your posts, that African Americans swarm to live in Hunters point so they can deal crack, and that Gays inhabit the Castro so they can flaunt their scrotum rings in public.

You confuse appearance with substance, the chicken with the egg.

I'll assume you are arguing for the sake of argument, see above ^ because I can't believe that you really don't know that people live in Hunters Point because they can't afford to live elsewhere (even up on Clarendon where you had the luxury of living). The result of that poverty, unemployment, or whatever, may be there are a lot of crack dealers. You try to disparage all the inhabitants by deliberately confusing the outcome with the genesis.

Likewise, in the Castro, unless you're completely ignorant of what it means to be Gay in the USA (especially in the 70's or 80's), you know that Gays grouped in the Castro because it was one of the few places we could safely even talk about being Gay without being harassed, harangued, or harmed physically. Certainly, the result may be that some individuals, once safety was tasted, chose to ignore all bounds of (straight) decorum. But again, that was a result of the congregation, not the origin of it. So, we're finished, as you've made my point for me.

So, I think we've about hashed THIS one to death in a forum about Gay Pride. It's clear when you like to say "I'm not anti... ,but ..." you are doing your best to justify your own prejudices and dislikes. We all have them. It would be much more honest just to admit them to yourself and either live with them or examine them. It least then you'd have to deal with your guilt, and we wouldn't. I think you've read this all wrong and had something you wanted to say and just used my post to say it. Whatever you're talking about, it doesn't relate to me.

By the way, I would nor characterize Pride as an attribute. Maybe Dignity would be more suitable.

[lannarebirth]

I agree that "... I think we've about hashed THIS one to death in a forum about Gay Pride." I suggest you two guys take the o9ff-topic discussion about how neighborhoods get regentrified to SFrisco, suburban CMai, etc. But, thanks for the comments.

Sorry PB, I'm all done. Just wanted to make one comment, not get in a back and forth thing.

[PeaceBlondie]

Enough discussion on this for a while. Closed until further notice.