May 2, 2013
Call me cynical, but I wonder if Jason Collins wishes the FBI could
have put off arresting the marathon bomber clean-up crew for a few
more days.
Sometime during my lifetime, news became a one story at a time
proposition. I don’t like it. I wonder how reporters feel about
it? Suppose nothing sensational happens for weeks? Would reporters
be reduced to doing investigative reporting about Jason Collins’
nose hair?
I pay about as much attention to the NBA as I do to professional
curling, so if Jason Collins’ sexual orientation coverage seemed
tedious to me, it must have been overwhelming for those who watch TV
and care about stuff.
My first thought – who is Jason Collins?
My second thought – why is everyone so frantic about this?
Maybe it’s always been this way, but as I see it, three things
shifted at the same time.
1) News broadcasts reported on one story – till something else
salacious happened.
2) People started putting tolerance and co-exist bumper stickers on
their vehicles.
3) Everybody got pissed about everything.
It seems to me that taking sides is more important now than it ever
has been before. You can’t just have an opinion – you have to
have a position. You have to be emphatic. (Exclamation mark
intentionally omitted.)
Are you for Coke or Pepsi?
No store bargain brand cop-outs allowed! You have to take a stand.
You have to grab a label, peel back that stubborn backing that never
comes off like it’s supposed to, and slap that tag over your heart!
Get frantic!
(But I don’t drink cola…) NO EXCUSE!
(What about minor brands?) What? and waste your vote!?!
I’m all for people believing what they believe in. I admire it,
but the way we insist on being two (and only two) armed camps on
every issue seems counter to the tolerance that both of these armed
camps are screaming for (but defining differently) at the top of
their lungs.
I wrote an editorial about labels years ago – back when the NBA was
still popular and being gay wasn’t. It’s supposed to be in the
increasingly mythological chapbook, Headley Makes Cents. I
don’t expect it to be helpful, but it fills up the rest of the
post, nicely.
No Response
I, for one, would like to applaud the people who
aren’t afraid of being known for who they are. There’s something
almost John Wayneish or Gary Cooper-like about a person who’s in
touch with their feelings, their strengths, their desires, their
aspirations, and doesn’t give a baby brown M&M who knows it.
(For those of you under 18, the baby brown M&M was the only M&M
that the M&M Mars company actually put flavor in. The company
replaced it with the blue M&M due to baby brown’s unfortunate
resemblance to rabbit droppings). Such people are easy to look up to
– you know the ones that don’t give a baby brown...
Yeah, Okay.
Of course, you can strain your neck looking up all
the time. Those of us who trod the lower strata: Those of us who are
insufficiently aware of what’s significant about ourselves can find
these confident types exhausting.
So he says to me, “I’m a gay man.”
It’s not easy to give the proper response to a
greeting like that. The natural impulse is to give the appropriate
colliery, “I’m a straight man.” Of course, if I heard someone
announce that he was a straight man, I might assume he was George
Burns and start looking around for Gracie Allen. What then, is a
good alternative?
“I’m a white man.”
“I’m a middle aged man.”
“I’m a bald man?”
He’s standing right in front of me, and as he
didn’t say, “blind, gay man” each of these choices appear to be
a bit obvious. Perhaps using “man” is a mistake. After all, he
used the term and it might sound like I’m cheating – you know –
copying off his paper?
How about something that shows the way I think?
“I’m a Presbyterian.”
“I’m a Libertarian.”
“I’m a tacoandfriesforluncharian?”
I don’t know. Seems like pretty shaky ground.
Saying such a thing is likely to get a reply like –
“How do you reconcile Calvin’s tenant of the
depravity of man with the utopian hopes inherent in basic
libertarianism, oh and by the way, your lunch is high fat, and leads
to serious gas issues.”
(You’re telling me!)
Well, perhaps the warm and fuzzy approach is best.
“I’m a friend to all the little forest
creatures.” (Except the ones I hit with my car)
Will he then assume that I classify gay men separate
among the fauna from humankind, or even worse, conclude that because
he is not a forest creature, I could never be his friend?
I’m floundering for any categorical statement that
precludes misinterpretation. I can’t simply avoid category –
only God and Popeye can say, “I yam what I yam.”
Maybe I need to take a breath and focus on what he’s
telling me. He’s well under ninety years of age, so I can assume
he’s not just telling me he’s happy. He’s introducing himself
by way of his sexual orientation. Perhaps some sort of positive
response is in order.
“Oh good, I like gay men.”
(No chance of that being misinterpreted.)
“Well, I won’t set you up with my sister?”
Hmm, I can’t put finger on it, but there’s
something wrong here too.
Maybe he wants me to give him an opportunity to
expand on his statement. All I have to do is relax and focus on him.
What doors of inquiry should I open? I’m not keen on hearing
about positions and methods. (Another reason to avoid the forest
animal bit)
“Do you have a partner?”
“How does that work for you?”
“So, do you find that hard – I mean difficult?”
Misinterpretations Abound.
Being known for who you are is a wonderful thing, but
can you really sum up a person in eight words or less. Say what you
will about labels being inaccurate or harmful. To me, they’re just
confusing. How can you relate to both a person and their label
simultaneously? A label is a bit like encountering a rotary: it
might take you where you want to go, but it gets you dizzy in the
process.
Dr. Pepper.
ReplyDeleteVote waster.
ReplyDeleteI Yam what I Yam! And I can say that, too! --Yam
ReplyDelete