As anyone who reads this blog knows, I stand shoulder to shoulder with a lot of good people, gay and straight, in being staunchly in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Like any large group, however, gay rights advocates have our share of people who take things to such ridiculous extremes that they give ammunition to those who oppose equality. A perfect example is the recent uproar started by the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) at Harvard, who are up in arms over a presentation by actress Jada Pinkett Smith. Why are they upset? Not because Smith said anything anti-gay or homophobic, which they agree she did not, but merely because her comments about women struggling to balance career and family were "heteronormative", that is, they dealt only with people like her who were in conventional straight marriages:
Students said that some of Pinkett Smith's remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA--and developed in coordination with the Foundation--the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue...
The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith's comments. But the Foundation has pledged to "take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class," according to the release...
BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith's speech was "motivational," some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.
"Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable," he said.
Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.
"Our position is that the comments weren't homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships," Woods said.
Margaret C. D. Barusch '06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.
"I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship--a heterosexual relationship," Barusch said. "I don't think she meant to be offensive but I just don't think she was that thoughtful."
Now let's look at the reports of what she actually said:
After being honored, Pinkett Smith gave a warm, teary thanks and shared life lessons with the audience."Don't let anybody define who you are," she said. "Don't let them put you in a box. Don't be afraid to break whatever ceiling anybody has put on you."
She told the audience about her childhood with teenage parents both addicted to heroin, but triumphantly exclaimed, "I can stand here on this stage and say that I've proven them all wrong."
She then addressed issues regarding the roles of men and women today.
"Women, you can have it all--a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."
"To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she added.
By the way, these comments were made at a Harvard event called Cultural Rhythms, which is itself a celebration of diversity. There is nothing in her comments that is the least bit offensive to gays; indeed, it seems to me that they would take inspiration from Smith's plea to not allow others to define you and put you in a box. This is exactly the kind of politically correct (yes, that term is vastly overused but applies quite accurately here) overreaction that just feeds the opposition's desire and ability to portray the entire gay rights movement as trite and silly and not worth taking seriously. These people need to grow up and realize that they can't make every other person in the world address their complaints with every sentence they speak. Smith has lived her life and can address issues from her own experience, shared with tens of millions of others, without also addresssing your experiences. This type of juvenile whining about lack of recognition (It's all about meeeeeee!) will do more to damage the cause of gay rights than all the Jerry Falwells in the world.
- Log in to post comments
I absolutely agree!
I'm glad you brought this up...it's important to champion the cause of equality whilst making sure not to be heterophobic or playing the victim.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Sounds like they're ready for that new reality TV series: "What Not To Think"...
Jeebus. Just when I thought that hyper-sensitive, politically correct hysterics on college campuses had finally given their last death rattle, someone comes along and proves just how willfully miserable people can. I mean, this "Cultural Rhythms" event itself sounds like the kind of multi-cultural, diversity-awareness event on "leftist" college campuses that social conservatives despise, and yet these students mananged to find something to complain about: the *implied* exclusionary tone in a couple of sentences from a celebrity speaker. Give me a flipping break. Sounds like a crop of media-circus-crafting professional fundraisers in the making. Every gay man and woman in America should hunt these kind of morons down, hog-tie them, and throw them in a cistern until SCOTUS rules that states must provide civil unions.
Unfortunately, the hyper-sensitive, politically correct hysterics on college campuses are stronger than ever. Our campus (which I shall not name here) is awash with the stuff. In fact, the whole university - every faculty member, secretary, computer-support-person and student clerk - will soon be forced into re-education sexual harassment training sessions "at the request of our insurance carrier."
This is not an idle fear: a nearby auto plant got hit with $12m because some womyn working there got "offended..."
And when some student Republicans held an event to demonstrate their dislike of affirmative action (by selling cookies - $1 to blacks and $3 to whites) they very nearly wound up in front of the academic discipline committee until the university president, (a black man) intervened.
I am really worried about the future of the First Amendment.
I am really worried about the future of the First Amendment.
There really is an enormous tension, primarily in academia, between individual rights and identity politics. Those who favor hate speech codes tend to frame it as a civil rights question, but that's a misrepresentation of the situation. No one has a right not to be offended. Indeed, the existence of the first amendendment guarantees that you will run into ideas being expressed that you find offensive. This should be celebrated, not feared, and certainly not stamped out.
We must keep in mind that all rights are individual in nature; rights do not adhere to groups or categories. No group has a right to be liked, or to be talked about well, or to be agreed with, or to be protected from offense. Yes, there are bigots in this world and they will say things that are stupid and demeaning. The answer to that is to prove them wrong, to use your own voice rather than to silence theirs. The zeal to control and to force an orthodoxy is present on both the left and the right, and in about equal proportions. And it must be fought in either case.
Don't forget that, being a speech, it was also prejudiced against deaf people....
Don't forget that, being a speech, it was also prejudiced against deaf people...
Not merely prejudiced, but also audionormative.
This is exactly the kind of politically correct (yes, that term is vastly overused but applies quite accurately here) overreaction that just feeds the opposition's desire and ability to portray the entire gay rights movement as trite and silly and not worth taking seriously.
I somewhat agree with the main thrust of this comment, but quite frankly much of the opposition clearly makes up things about gays to further their opposition. The whole thing about gay=pedophile is illustrative of that.
I agree with you that "politically correct" is overused, and I agree with you that it applies accurately here, but one characterization that also applies--and that has become underused--is "silly." The objection was quite silly. It's unfortunate that the word seems to have fallen into disuse.
On the First Amendment issue, since Harvard is a private institution, it is far from clear that the Amendment applies.
On the "audionormative" issue, given the venue of the program, I would almost be willing to bet that they had signers there.
On the First Amendment issue, since Harvard is a private institution, it is far from clear that the Amendment applies.
One might be able to make a case that it does not legally apply. But I try to uphold American ideals wherever I am, regardless. Your freedom of speech... is mine as well! Freedom really is something that only works when it is shared.
Of course there are very specialized instances where speech must be limited. But those should be supported on a case-by-case basis. A university forum, in particular, is a bad place to break one of our most valuable principles.
BTW this post reminded me of a hilarious Onion article, "Gay pride parade sets gay rights back 50 years." Alas, I could not find a link to it.
"audionormative": hysterical.
Hey,
I just wanted to add that those quotes were the quotes from an earlier article on Cultural Rhythms. Supposedly, the comments that they gays were upset about occurred afterwards....we really don't know the sepcific comments that were made that frustrated the audience