Weekend
 Wiki * IMDB

Review aside, the movie showed three instances of CCTV cameras, which made me think even further about the nature of suceptability of queer people (someone mentions a gay guy been beaten for cruising in a park), the suckiness/rite of passage characteristic of coming out, and the different kind of queers out there (which then have different types of gazes upon them).

First time there is a security camera near the building where Russ lives; the shot is a couple of seconds long and the camera pans from side to side. Being out sucks sometimes. It does have a liberating sense in which you are aware and feel empowered on how you are going to feel and how you will respond to others out there. But is painful sometimes too because it leaves you exposed to all the bullshit that bigots out there presume about your life, what you want to do with it, and how you behave. Russ says he is happy in his home, but his semi-out self feels uncomfortable sharing his uneasiness, as well as his feelings being queer with his close non-queer friends.

The second time is at the train station; the PA system reminds everyone that everything is being recorded for security purposes. Coming out (which is something you do for the rest of your life) does feel like a rite of passage. At this point, my choosing to share with someone about my boyfriend does little to the fact that I am indeed exposing myself to a non 'tolerating' opinion about who I am. As Glen helped Russ have that experience, I felt like I was also helped by several catalytic events in my life that pushed me to those moments. Regardless, I am happy they happened and I am glad the way they turned out.

The third time is right at the end of the movie; we see the CCTV camera again on top of the building when we see Russ in his window. No matter if you are the loud queer who talks and closes down a party everytime you get the chance about your struggle as a queer person of color, or the quiet passive one that chooses to pass by, the gaze is always there. Sadly, this is the gaze that turns some of us off, whereas it evokes a desire to speak in others. The gaze is sometimes too much to bear, like when you have to live in a time where the government decides the best way you get to enjoy your life living as who you are. The gaze is always there, and it is always watching how we comply...or not.

Capital gay Pride

Yesterday I went to the Capital Pride Parade. It was a very interesting experience and one that I personally enjoyed. Though the activity retained a festive characteristic it was very well put together and did not have many "exaggerated" elements that I was expecting in this kind of event; I don't know if that is a good tng or a bad thing...yet. It was full of contrasts and very much reflected the highly political atmosphere that always permeate DC. I'll come back to this in the end.

When I was in Madrid two years ago, I went to the pride parade there and though I was reluctant to go, I had a good time nonetheless. It was a very different experience from the one that I just went in DC. One of the main aspects of the Madrid parade was that big and little, local and international organizations related to LGBT issues were present in the floats; lesbian (in)visibility was highlighted at the parade (it was actually the theme of the whole event) and there seemed to be a great presence of lesbians in the floats. Another contrasting characteristic between the two was that while the event seemed to highlight very serious issues (mainly civil and sexual rights), it still had an element of playful debauchery and explicit challenge to mainstream norms; there were a great number of drag queens, leather gays, people in very minimal (nude and body painted, underwear, swimsuits) and revealing clothing. All of this existing parallel contrasted with the family environment that the parade encouraged; there were homosexual and heterosexual families with little children at the sidelines of the parade who were engaged with the floats and its participants.

In contrast the DC parade had an element of a big block party with a particular surreality to it. For one, the parade seemed to be aimed just to the LGBT community and rightfully so provided an outlet of lax playfulness to the everyday constraints of decorum and conduct; much like Latin American Carnivals that present an escape to everyday rightfulness and permit sinful behaviors just before lent starts. The music and floats seemed to be invite everyone to "just relax and chill" while showing everyone how diverse the DC and its surrounding areas really are. Despite this, there were no naked people, no body paint, nothing out of the ordinary except for the DC gay leather float (which had men in leather jocks at the least and other S&M clothing), a strip pole (with models that when taking into account that they were using a strip pole, might as well be wearing suits and dresses) and someone in underwear would appear once in a while. It was a very conservative LGBT party when compared to the one in Madrid, but the comparison might not be fair given the two very diffent contexts. Another aspect of the DC parade was the many (many) floats of politicians including incumbent mayor Fenty and others seeking (re)election this coming November, and the different Church's floats. Churches? in Gay Pride? At first it was just weird. Though I am not a big fan of religion I am respectful enough to not be too negative about it if not previously brought up. There were many floats, I did not count how many there were to be exact, but an educated guess would be about twenty floats; twenty floats were from churches encouraging diversity and acceptance in their communities across the DC area. Their message was clear: we accept you in our communities. I don't have further thoughts on this.

Going back to one of my original thoughts on this matter, it is obvious why that this event is highly politicized, full of religion, a cup of progressiveness and more goodies mixed in the batter. Inmigration equality had a float, as well as the controversial Human Rights Campaign along with the gay cowboys and the local gay sport bar. It seems that these organizations, which are based in DC, see these types of events to publicly bolster their claim as defenders of their 'subjects': the LGBTs, the immigrant LGBTs, the religious LGBTs, the LGBTs that are parents, the republican and democrat LGBTs, etc. DC is not a battleground, but it does have a cathartic characteristic to it in which one can come and bitch about what is perceived as wrong and try to get someone to pay attention to you...and this is what the DC pride parade missed: a social involvement with the community was downplayed in order to demonstrate the importance of DC as a political stronghold; much like one of the Two Towers of Middle Earth.

I wanted to see more social work and less politics, but pride still works and should be celebrated. Though I don't highly identify with "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", I do have things in common with other LGBTs; as such I felt the need for this reflection and to celebrate 'queerness' by being present, never invisible! Looking back this post is more of a reflection and right now I don't seem to have more opinions about the event. I wish more refection of this manner could be achieved. Therefore, in keeping with the style of previous posts, I will just present my unanswered questions and thoughts on the matter.

Other thoughts:

1. Is the pride movement in the US more conservative than in Spain (Europe)? I want to say yes...
2. Has 'pride' been more successful in being family friendly in Spain than here in the US?
3. Is it a positive thing that pride here is not as 'nude' and 'out there' as in other places? Am I just reproducing Phallic-WASP Ideology with such a statement? Again, did I do this when i refer to other expressions of pride as 'exaggerated' at the beginning of this post?

Ender's Game and NOM

x

x

[Warning: Highly subjective and personalistic post]

Yesterday I realized that the author of this book I'm reading, is a conservative gay-marriage-hater Mormon . I am currently reading Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card and I am enthralled with the book. This is taken from the author's wikipedia entry:

"A devout and outspoken Mormon, Card is a board member of the National Organization for Marriage." (wiki link).

NOM is an organization that embodies many things that are wrong with American society (I am not even trying to be objective, but this is my narrative after all so bear with me) as they are against civil liberties and rights that should be entitled to every person regardless of their sexual identity, gender, race, religion, etc. I feel really strongly about this topic, but this is not the issue that I want to discuss.

It was a shock to learn that the author of this book that I am reading (and enjoying) would be against something I thought so essential in my life. I felt insulted; but that was partially my own fault. I should have done more research about the author before I started reading the book. I feel conflicted, as it is a moral and spritual dillema for me; If I knew beforehand that he is an outspoken participant of this organization, I would have boycotted reading the book in the first place. How do I make it right in my mind right now? I am disturbed and feel wrong about this. How do I deal with the fact that this guy is a "gay-hater" (my personal subjectification) and I enjoy his sci-fi books?

It would have been clearer (easier) for me to have made this decision if Glenn Beck came out with Sci-fi books; I would definitely not go there! That's why it's easier to make this kind of decision with contemporary authors, and that is exactly why I don't read Paulo Coehlo's books among others. Problem is, Orson Scott Card is a contemporary author. BURNED doesn't even being to describe how bad this looks.

My mistake still makes me think about the product of artists and authors when we consume them. Obviously I don't see a problem when the product goes along the lines of a more liberal (as opposed to conservative) vision of the cosmos. In addition, thinking about art and its products reminded me of my short trip yesterday afternoon to the National Portrait Gallery in Chinatown, where I lingered on the President's Hall. Out of curiosity I went to this specific part of the museum trying to replicate a sublime experience such as the one I had last Sunday at the National Gallery of Art. I felt sad and scared, but no sublime. The portraits presented a group of white men who are regarded as the epitome of the American Republic; a climax that everyone thinks represents what it means to be American. I definitely didn't feel that way: I felt as a stranger looking at canvas in disdain. I felt sad because of the many catastrophes these men unleashed. But of course these men also had many great qualities, but so did many other monsters through history. Point is, no one is one-dimensional and these men definitely were not just brave, awesome and the founding fathers and leaders of the American dream the discursive narratives repeat; they also owned slaves, treated women as inferior human beings and did as they pleased with Native Americans and the emerging American Countries all over the continent. My gaze in the museum lingered on a imperialist perception of an neo-imperialist nation. I didn't feel represented by that. How can non-male, non-white people see these men and see empathy in their eyes? How can they see themselves as part of the result of their endeavors? How can people see them in such a romanticized manner? How can they insert themselves in this narrative?

And that was my lesson; a rude awakening. Being a victim of what I profess, I realized that these presidents, these artists and these contemporary authors are more than just anti-gay conservative bastards, or self-help suppliers to needy-emotional junkies. These people are also creative souls that can inspire me and make me joyous in other aspects of my life. This aspect of living in multiverses also reminds me on how people from different beliefs are crossing over into areas some people never thought they would go.  Conservatives writing Sci-Fi; homos like me preying on sci-fi; Cher and Madonna resisting aging; Apple and Google fighting over control of the world; Gays wanting to get married, etc... Nothing is just something and authors, very much like humans are more than just one thing: they can be other things too and that is ok.

Orson Scott Card is an asshole, but I can still enjoy his book. It's ok, I can do this.

Other thoughts

• Is this why Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh's wedding? Because he knows Rush is not just a conservative prick?
• What's the difference of this and when I read The Chronicles of Narnia?
• Would I be disillusioned if I knew that Asimov was also a homo hater? What about other people like Darwin, Galileo, Pope John Paul II?
• Is this really important? Do I really need to know the artist's politics to enjoy it more? Less? Same?