Dear Gamers

Dear Gamers,

I saw a post today on the World of Warcraft forums from a player who had "outed" herself in real life as a gamer.  I didn't think much about it; the social stigma against gaming, whether or not exists, and how various gamers deal with it, is a topic which comes up fairly often on the forums.

And then the replies rolled in.

Here are my favorite two from the first page:

Careful, this kind of "coming out" may lead to more discrimination than the other one!
LOLS! (true though.) 

There is less stigma to being gay than there is to playing WoW. Gamers are just not normal.

The best part of that is how the poster backs off of the statement with a "lol" and then comes around again with a "true though."

Let's see.  Gamers face more discrimination than gay people, you say?  Let's look at that from the perspective of the USA, where the majority of WOW-US general forumgoers reside.

Can gamers legally marry each other in all 50 states?

Do gamers face discrimination in housing?

Can gamers legally adopt in all 50 states?  Do legal barriers prevent gamers from fostering children?

Can two gamer kids attend school functions together without facing resistance from the administration?  Can gamer kids wear gaming-related T-shirts to school without facing resistance from the administration?

How often are young gamers thrown out of their own homes by their own parents simply for liking videogames?

Do gamers have trouble getting appropriate healthcare?  Do gamers have trouble securing appropriate identification and government documentation?  For how many years were gamers barred from serving in the Armed Forces?

Job discrimination, murder rates, assault rates, legal barriers, institutional discrimination, the list goes on.  You can talk about the social stigma against gamers as much as you like, but please don't play "contrast and compare" and "who has it worse" with the gay community, or people of color, or women, or other marginalized populations.

Gamers who feel that they're facing prejudice and bigotry can, if need be, put down the controller, step away from the keyboard, or stop rolling the dice.  Trying to change or deny one's sexual orientation and sexual identity aren't comparable.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Blizzard

Use of homophobic slurs ahead.

Dear Blizzard,

Do you remember how I wrote to you a week or so ago to ask why you stopped censoring the word "rape" on the forums?

I didn't even realize, at the time, that you'd removed other words from the filter.

For example: fag.

I don't want to repeat my entire argument from last time, but here it is in short: You filtered the word in the first place because it's a disgusting, homophobic insult.  By censoring it, you discouraged your players from using it and signaled to them that it's not an appropriate word to toss around in idle or angry conversation.  By removing it from the filter, you're giving your players license to use the word whenever and however they wish.  "Never mind, go ahead and say it!  It's cool with us!"

You say that you take harassment seriously.  You claim that players aren't supposed to harass each other.  How do you imagine the word "fag" coming into the conversation in a way that isn't homophobic?  In what context do you anticipate players using that word in a sentence in a positive, friendly way?  And does that imagined context counterbalance all of the negative, nasty, homophobic uses?

I suppose that you'll suggest that if we find someone using homophobic language, we should report that person, and you'll handle it.  As usual, the onus is on the players to clean up the community, and you take a step back from responsibility.  You do realize, of course, that we were already reporting people for homophobic language.  We've been doing that all along.  Before, however, it seemed like we had your support in that; you were discouraging bad habits, censoring the most abused words, using your influence to squelch common, egregious homophobia.  Now, we're in this on our own, and if we don't report it, you won't do a thing about it.  You won't even bother to censor the words.  Remind me, again, how much effort that took on your part?

"Just report the offender," you say.  We all know, after all, how responsive and efficient the reporting system is.

I would love to understand the thought processes behind these decisions.  "It was wrong of us to discourage our players from using homophobic slurs and making rape jokes.  We should let their contempt run free!  Who cares if that makes the gaming community even more hostile to marginalized populations?  We've been using our influence to make WOW more inclusive, and that was obviously a mistake!"

The censor works automatically.  It's a "set it and forget it" sort of system.  Why not leave it alone?  Why make the decision to remove words from the filter?  Who had this idea?  Who decided what to include and what to remove?  I certainly don't want to sit down with a list of misogynist terms and racist slurs and see what makes it through the filter, but I would love to know which other delightful little words you've given your blessing lately.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. Again, that little problem I had?  Still a problem.

Dear Ke$ha

US pop star Ke$ha says she wants to be a gay man because they are 'magical people'.
The Tik Tok singer whose latest single Die Young is out now told Britain's Gaydar Radio that she feels a strong bond with gay men.
Asked if she would like to be a gay man, she answered: 'Are you joking? Yes, I do.'
Ke$ha added: 'There's just an energy to a gay man.
'It's not really comparable to any other people. You guys just exude just this happiness.
'Pretty much my whole touring party, as far as, like, the dancers, it's a lot of gay, beautiful, beautiful men. And they're just gorgeous. And their love of life is amazing. They're just, I don't know, just really magical people.'
-GSN, via

Dear Ke$ha,

I believe that when you talk about gay men being magical, beautiful people who love life, you mean to be complimentary.  I believe that you mean well.

But that was a really harmful, bullshit thing to say.

Gay men are not more or less energetic, more or less happy, more or less beautiful, gorgeous, or magical than anyone else.  They don't love life more or less than anyone else.  They are, in fact, comparable to other kinds of people.  You've created some separate, special, unique category for them, removing them from the general population of humankind, as if they're magical fairy creatures here to be beautiful and celebrate life and sparkle.

Gay men are just people.  Some gay men are old.  Some gay men are ill-tempered.  Some gay men are racist and/or stupid and/or ugly.  Some gay men are felons.  Some gay men are abusive.  Some gay men don't use their turn signals.  Some gay men have disabilities.

On Shakesville today, Liss posted some photos of some of the new couples getting married in Washington and Maryland now that same-sex marriage is finally legal there.  In comments, lizziepet said:

I shared the Buzzfeed link that had the photos of Jane and Pete-e on Facebook yesterday, and one of my friends was like, "Well, that's not what I was expecting." "What were you expecting?" "Not old people." "Because only the young and hip can be queer? o.0"

Do you understand how this is relevant?

You're separating out gay men from the general population and shoving them into a "magical" box.  You're denying them the fullness of their personhood.  They don't get to be irritable or unkempt or unpleasant, like anyone else does.  They don't get to be fat or old or depressed or ugly.

Let people be people.  We talk a lot in feminism about intersectionality, because anything that hurts people with disabilities hurts women with disabilities, anything that hurts people of color hurts women of color, anything that hurts trans people hurts trans women, and so on.  All women aren't minor variations on the same theme, and all gay men aren't, either.

Gay men are people.  Some people are happy, magical, beautiful, energetic people who love life.  Some people aren't.  Pushing "positive" stereotypes isn't helpful, it's harmful.  If you genuinely want to be an ally, you'll stop.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Justin Timberlake

This post contains discussion of classism, transphobia, mockery of homeless people, mockery of people who appear to be mentally ill and/or intoxicated and/or addicted, and gross amounts of thoughtless privilege on display.  It also contains references to rape culture.

Dear Justin Timberlake,

Congratulations on your marriage.  I hope for your happiness.

I'm about a month late on this topic, because I've been debating with myself over whether or not to speak up.  Back in October, Liss pointed readers to an article about this:

The blind was all about the “wedding gift” some friends made for a recently married couple. The “gift” was a “funny” video in which homeless people talked on camera about how they were super-sad to miss the celebrity couple’s big, fancy wedding. Because the “joke” is that homeless people are SO funny, what with their homelessness and not knowing where their next meal will come from, and the joke is that of course the celebrity couple would invite some homeless people to their wedding.

Terrible.  That is cruel and mean-spirited and absolutely disgusting.

As word of the video spread, you responded in an open letter on your website.

Let's take a read.

As it pertains to this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery:

Not a mockery?  I don't understand what it was, then.  How does the video work as a joke if it isn't mocking the people onscreen?  What's the joke?

My friends are good people.

Good people make fun of those in need?

Your friends may be more complex than you realize.  Perhaps this gets to the nature of what "goodness" is and how we exhibit it.  If you only ever see Bob act like a decent guy, you think of Bob as a decent guy.  Then you find out that Bob has done some shitty, cruel things.  You can either go with the response of, "Wow, there are aspects of Bob's personality and character that I never knew!  Let me reevaluate how well I know this guy!"  Or you can go with the response of, "But the Bob I know donates money to AIDS research!  He's a wonderful person!  Donating money is a good thing, so Bob is a good person, and I allow for no complexities in my fellow human beings!"

You'll see this sort of response a lot when someone's being accused of being a rapist or murderer.  "Not Bob!  Impossible!  Bob pets dogs!"  "Bob?!  No way!  Bob's always nice to me!"  This is how a lot of sexual predators get by in life.  They do good things in public and horrible things in private, and when the horrible stuff comes to light, everyone says, "But he's always been so great to my kids!" or "But he volunteers for the church!" and he continues on his merry, awful way and his victims are called liars.  That's why the blanket statement of "he's a good person" really, really needs to be discarded as a defense.

Your friends may be funny, helpful, dog-petters around you.  That does not make them good people.  That makes them friendly around Justin Timberlake.  They're also (at least one of them) completely shitty and cruel around homeless people.  In my book, that's incompatible with the label "good people."

This was clearly a lapse in judgment which I'm sure no one who is reading this is exempt from.

Yes, we're all given to lapses in judgment from time to time.  I often regret doing or saying (or not doing, not saying) something.  We fuck up, we make mistakes, we're human.  But coming up with the video idea, getting a camera and going out to interview the people featured, conducting the interviews, editing the video and adding a soundtrack, and then sharing the video, involves a lot of time and effort.  It involves a certain amount of time in consideration of the video and its various aspects.  Deciding that I can speed up and get through a traffic light in time, only to cause an accident, is a lapse in judgment.  What's under discussion here is much more serious.

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive.

No?  How so?  What do you think that it was, then?  The point was to mock homeless people in need of help.  It's a joke, but not mockery and not insensitive?  Was it sensitive, then?  Sensitive to their needs?  Sensitive to their plight?  Sensitive to their need to be treated with dignity and respect?

More so, I think it was made as a joke on me not having that many friends attending my own wedding (which IS kind of funny if you think about it).

Up until this point, I find it difficult to understand precisely what you think is going on.  Here is where communication breaks down entirely and I wonder if you think that we don't know who you are.

Hi.  You're Justin Timberlake.

People love you wherever you go.  People collaborate with you on a song or work with you on a set and immediately cannot get over how awesome you are.  You seem to have some ridiculous amount of personal charm which turns other Hollywood professionals into starry-eyed fans.  It happens in every corner of the entertainment industry you brush up against.  It has happened throughout your career.

You have no trouble making friends.

With that said, maybe you don't consider those people to be "friends."  Maybe you appreciate the interest and intentions of all of those other people, but when you think of true friendship, you think of someone who's been there for you, someone you can open up to, someone you've really been through something with.

The other members of *NSYNC, perhaps?  No, not them; you didn't invite any of them to your wedding.

All right, maybe your definition of friendship is something more intense, something more personal.  Your true friends are the people you've really connected with, really bonded with, people who know you inside and out.  The only people you'd consider inviting to your wedding are members of an elite inner circle, people who know you as no one else ever can.

Those people know you very, very well, then, I'd imagine.

They'd know what you like.  They'd know your sense of humor.  They'd know what makes you laugh and what crosses the line.

And they made this video for your special day.

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

Its intention was to make you laugh.  Its intention was to be funny.  Its intention was to entertain with some good-times humor.  The intention was to mock poor people, homeless people, people who need help.  Because homeless people, people with addictions, people with mental illnesses, and trans people are funny.  At least, it's hilarious to think of them being so deluded as to consider themselves welcome in your sphere.  Hilarious to think of them being welcome at your wedding or associated with you.  Hilarious to think of them even knowing you!  So, so funny.  As if you would ever know someone like that!  As if, wait.  As I recall, Chris Kirkpatrick lived out of his car for a while.  Wait, that can't be right!  That would make it seem as if homeless people are actual people, like anyone else.  Almost like you!  With things in common with you!  Aw, now the joke's ruined.

Once again, in the world that we live in where everyone thinks that they know everything, I want to be very clear... I am NOT defending the video. I agree with the overall consensus.

For someone who's being "very clear," you're not being entirely clear.  You agree with the overall consensus?  Would you care to explain what you believe the overall consensus to be?  So far, you've described the video as:

something that has even shed any kind of dark light on what was and will always be one of the most special weeks of my life.

this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery 

a lapse in judgment 

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive. More so, I think it was made as a joke on me 

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

It's a silly, unsavory joke.  In poor taste, accidentally.  Unintentionally insensitive.  Not a mockery.

A well-intentioned joke that accidentally turned out to be in poor taste.  If it mocks anyone, it mocks you, really.  Poor, friendless Justin Timberlake, the real victim in all of this.  How cruel of us to misunderstand.

I want to say that, on behalf of my friends, family, and associative knuckleheads

Aw, those knuckleheads.  Always goofing around, mocking homeless trans people!

I am deeply sorry to anyone who was offended by the video.

There we go!  "I am deeply sorry."  It only took you 12 paragraphs to get there!

Sorry to anyone who was offended, you say?  What about an apology to the people in the video?  To the specific people taken advantage of for your crowds' amusement?  To the general kinds of people mocked?  Any apologies for them?  Anything to say to the trans community?  To people in poverty, people in need, people on the streets?

Again, it was something that I was not made aware of.

You seem to be aware of it now.  When were you made aware of it?  I guess that you were too busy to join in the wedding festivities, so when it was shown to everyone else, you weren't around?  I mean, according to the linked article, "Mr. Huchel made [the] video to be used and exhibited privately at Justin Timberlake’s wedding as a private joke without Mr. Timberlake’s knowledge," but I can't tell if the "without Mr. Timberlake's knowledge" pertains to the "made" or the "used and exhibited."  Either way, it seems odd that he'd go to that much work to make the video without ever showing it to you.  It's like a wedding gift for everyone at the wedding but the actual couple.  It makes me wonder what sort of dynamic is at play here, that a friend of yours would make a video for your wedding that he thought your wedding party would find hilarious but wasn't worth showing to you.  Odd.

But, I do understand the reaction and, by association, I am holding myself accountable.

How?  In what way?  What does this mean?  What's happening here?  You're going to give yourself a stern talking-to?  You're going to take time out for somber reflection on your choice of friends?  You're going to donate to homeless shelters?  You're going to educate yourself on poverty and addiction?  You're going to say to yourself, "Justin Timberlake, I hold you responsible for this silly, well-intentioned joke which accidentally turned out to be in poor taste!" and then go golfing?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

It's your website.  You have the opportunity to post anything you want to post on it.

It really is a blessing to be able to speak directly to my true fans so that you can know exactly where I stand.

True fans?  You and I have a long, long talk coming about how you treat your fans, and I probably shouldn't get into that here, but calling on your "true fans" only serves as a "prove it to me" statement.  You're seeking to differentiate "true fans" from the other fans, as if your true fans will be loyal and stand by your side and accept whatever you say without question, while anyone who dares to read your "apology" and call bullshit can't possibly be a true fan.  That is a lousy thing to do to your fans.  They're allowed to love and support you and still think that this is a shitty moment and a terrible apology.

You can bet your ass that I'm having my friend do at least 100 hours of community service... Boom.

Wait, I thought that you were holding yourself accountable.  Should I expect to see you out there doing 100 hours of community service, too?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Modern Family

Dear "Modern Family,"

Hi, here I am again.  I've written to you before, although not from this blog.  I watch your show fairly regularly, and while I enjoy many aspects of it, there are parts of it which give me pause, and other parts of it which bother me so much that I have to speak up once in a while.

Recently, you aired an episode with Matthew Broderick as a gay man who sort of dates Phil for an evening. Matthew Broderick is wonderfully charismatic, so I was pleased to see him.

However, I have two issues I'd like to discuss.

First, the "straight person cast as gay person" situation.  Overall, more gay characters onscreen is a good thing.  However, I'd like to see more gay actors cast.  This doesn't mean that I demand gay actors as gay characters and straight actors as straight characters and bi actors as bi characters.  What it means, really, is that I don't see enough out gay actors onscreen.  If I saw out gay actors all over the place, I wouldn't bother to keep track of who gets which role.  But when I don't see enough gay actors as it is, and then the role of a gay character pops up and another straight guy gets it, I wonder when Hollywood will get around to being inclusive.

(I'll take this moment to give a quick nod to Jesse Tyler Ferguson.  I loved you in "The Class!"  Congratulations on your engagement!)

Let's move on to the second problem.

What was up with that kiss?

I was disgusted by the Tom Hanks/Antonio Banderas kiss back in Philadelphia, and that was 19 years ago.  To clarify, I wasn't disgusted by the idea of the kiss.  I was disgusted that we couldn't see the kiss.  This back-of-the-head nonsense, where we assume that the characters are kissing but for all we know the actors are just checking each other's breath, is childish and ridiculous.  I'm baffled and disgusted that we're still pulling these moves in 2012.

I don't know if you played coy for the sake of the actors, for the sake of your audience, or for some other reason entirely, but if you were trying to avoid offending people, oops!  I'm peeved, irked, and riled up.  "Modern Family" is a popular, award-winning, prime-time major network show.  A lot of people watch it.  A lot of people pay attention to it.  You just had a big guest star in an attention-getting role, which means even more viewers and interest than usual.  And you dropped the ball.

Back in 1993, Philadelphia tried to convey positive, important, political and personal messages about gay people, their lives, their rights, homophobia, and AIDS.  And in that landmark movie, they dodged the kiss.  It communicated to me that even in a supposedly progressive, risk-taking movie, Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas actually kissing onscreen would have been going too far.  After all, we can try to portray gay people, we can try to humanize gay people, but the sight of lips on lips: impossible.

Nineteen years later, showing the kiss is still going too far.

You disappoint me.  And you insult me.

We're moving into 2013 in a few weeks.  I hope that next year, I'll be able to write a happier letter.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear General Mills

General Mills’ mission is Nourishing Lives. Not just some. But all.

Dear General Mills,

Thank you.

When I heard that homophobic groups were gathering to boycott General Mills, I assumed that you must have done something good.

And you have.

I hope that you continue to embrace diversity and champion progressive causes.  I hope that these statements lead to bigger and better things.  It's heartening to see a major corporation move in this direction.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Amtrak

Dear Amtrak,

Thank you.

I've been avoiding flying for years.  The way airlines treat their fat customers pisses me off and, frankly, makes me anxious.  The only person I've shared my worry with has assured me that I'm not fat enough to be harassed, but the airlines apply their anti-fat policies so unevenly, I'd rather avoid the situation altogether.

And then there's the security theater.  The enhanced pat-downs.  No.  I object to all of that bullshit on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

In my efforts to avoid flying, I've begun to seek out alternatives.  You, Amtrak, were my first consideration.  I did some research into your policies and security.  Your anti-fat policies don't seem as obnoxious or as obvious as the airlines', for what it's worth.  It seems that security measures have been increased recently, but I was assured by an Amtrak rep that if I travel with you, no one will pat me down or, indeed, touch me.

My relief was immense, and I decided to look into using Amtrak for my next excursion.

And then, only yesterday, a link from Shakesville took me to Towleroad which took me to MetroWeekly which said this:

As part of an effort to market its standard discounted family travel program, for the first time, the national passenger rail company included gay families in its materials. In an online ad sent by Instinct magazine to its email subscribers, a photo of same-sex parents with their child is featured.

Two version of the ad, one with a picture of a male couple and another with a female couple, were distributed.  Both versions include the headline: Priceless Family Moments Are Now Affordable.  The ad goes on to promote Amtrak's 50% off campaign for children age 2 to 15 who are traveling with an adult, and directs readers to its gay travel website www.AmtrakRideWithPride.com.

Amtrak, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a member of the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association.  In began its initial Ride with Pride campaign in 2010.

Thank you, Amtrak.  If I'm able, I hope to make you a staple of my travel plans.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Boy Scouts of America

Dear Boy Scouts of America,

Congratulations to your super-secret committee on deciding to confirm how homophobic your organization is.  Your "no gay folks allowed!" sign looks great with that fresh coat of paint.

Here's my problem.  Your organization is homophobic.  To me, your hateful bullshit and exclusive policy are so disgusting that your decision communicates "we're homophobic assholes and proud of it!"

But other people love the Boy Scouts of America.  There are adults who gained a lot from their experience with you.  There are adults who contribute a lot to your organization now.  There are kids who build friendships and confidence with you.  To them, the BSA is great!

If the BSA is great, and the BSA is homophobic, then homophobia might be great, too.  You wouldn't discriminate without reason.  You're keeping those gay people away with good cause, right?  There must be something wrong with them.  Being gay must be a bad thing.

Will kids become homophobic solely because of your super-secret committee's decision?  Probably not.  But you don't operate in a vacuum.  Homophobia's all around them, sometimes from shady sources, sometimes from trusted sources.  We live in a homophobic society, and it takes progressive activism from the people around us to teach us not to be homophobic jerks.  It takes critical self-examination to uproot homophobic ideas.  What you're doing is reinforcing that garbage and encouraging hostility.

The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.  For over a century, the BSA has helped build the future leaders of this country by combining educational activities and lifelong values with fun. The Boy Scouts of America believes — and, through over a century of experience, knows — that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society.

Homophobia is responsible citizenship?  Rejecting gay people is a step to building a productive society?  Oh, you're not kicking them out of society, are you, just out of your organization.  No gay people here!  No gay leaders.  No gay scouts.  No lesbian den mothers.  If gay kids want to participate, they'd better deny who they are, repress themselves, remain closeted lest anyone find out.  Sure, that's how to build character and help youth.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America.

I wonder what these "issues of same-sex orientation" are which need to be addressed.  Do you know what I think that the Boy Scouts need to teach kids about gay people?  That gay people exist.  That gay people are anywhere and everywhere, responsible citizens of our "conscientious, responsible, and productive society."

With love,
Frank Lee

With thanks to Pam's House Blend.