Stuck in the Gay Pride Rut

It's that time of year, again, when all across the nation, leathermen are polishing their chaps and vests, gogo boys are tightening their abs, and the dykes are revving up their bikes.

Yes, my friends, it's Gay Pride 2013!

But, for me, Pride just isn't what it used to be.  Nothing is, really.  That, sadly, is the nature of change, progress, and evolution.  The institutions we once held sacred will inevitably fall out of favor, and the way we did things 43 years ago in June of 1970 aren't the way we do things, now.

I can't speak for the 70s, or much of the early 80s, but what I can tell you is that we are, in my not-so-humble opinion, stuck in a big gay rut.

I am often accused of being a naysayer, always willing to point out what's wrong with things, but never providing any solutions.  Oftentimes, however, I feel that label is inaccurately ascribed to me by people who only take in the criticisms I put forth without hearing any of the other words that come out of my mouth or out of my fingers.

That's what happens, however, when a nerve gets tripped - people shut down their external audio meatus and focus on the thing that's pissing them off.  I do this; you do this; everyone does it.  Human nature compels us to seek out those whose opinions, beliefs, and characteristics are closest hewn to our own, though doing so often leads to stagnation and a lack of forward momentum.

This is, in my opinion, what is wrong with the way the LGBT community is moving forward in this century in terms of building up a community and subcultures within those communities: the leaders of the last generation refuse to hand over the reins to the next group of leaders, and will accept no dissent from within.

I've seen it happen more times than I care to remember, in several different settings:

A group of guys of a similar age group get together to plan an event, and they start to brainstorm.

It sounds all good, right?  We've been taught that brainstorming is a great way to come up with new and unique ideas, and we've believed that for over sixty years, so it must work, right?

Well, if you believe that, you'd be wrong.

Brainstorming was first described in print by Alex Osborn, a partner in the B.B.D.O. advertising agency, in his 1948 work, "Your Creative Power."  In Chapter Thirty-Three, he outlines the process for "organiz[ing] a squad to create ideas," and calls it "brainstorming."

"Creativity," Osborn writes, "is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom, while discouragement often nips it in the bud."

The number one rule in any brainstorming session is that criticism and arguments of feasibility frighten members of the group, making them less likely to contribute ideas.  Why, you could be missing out on a GOLD MINE between someone's ears (and that's actually a [stupid] title for a real book)!  Only free associations and ideas should be put forth, and no negativity or dissent is allowed.

"The appeal of this idea is obvious," writes Jonah Lehrer of The New Yorker, "it’s always nice to be saturated in positive feedback. Typically, participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contribution. The whiteboard has been filled with free associations. Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work."

Lehrer penned his New Yorker piece, "Groupthink - The Brainstorming Myth," in January of 2012, and in his piece cites several peer-reviewed, highly-creditable studies from the present all the way back to 1958.  And the findings are overwhelmingly in his favor - "Criticism allows people to dig below the surface of the imagination and come up with collective ideas that aren’t predictable."

This is a fact that is central to why performance groups with the highest ratios of success, from Broadway to drum corps, all largely comprised of design teams whose personalities clash.  Those whose success is limited, but mentionable, often have design teams who practice the myth of brainstorming, and inevitably fall into the "Groupthink" trap - everyone agrees on the theme, everyone agrees with the direction things are going, and everyone affirms everyone else's ideas, regardless of how stupid they are, because we don't want to stifle creativity, now, do we?

The reality is that this approach rarely nets extraordinary results.  Criticism and arguments of feasibility allow creative groups to "dig below the surface," and come up with solutions to those problems before they become problems.

Pride, for me, is one of those examples where a good idea that started out great has ended up, frankly, being lame.  I won't speak for anyone else, but I feel about as much sense of being a part of a community at these things as I do when I get in my car and drive down the road.

Actually, that's a great metaphor for how I view Pride festivals - I'm driving along, and some asshole cuts me off, while another person is driving between lanes, and there's a motorcyclist swerving dangerous in and out of traffic, and someone's blown a tire in the Number Two lane, which is backing up traffic for three miles, and my air conditioner isn't putting out enough cold air to counteract the sun's bright as fuck rays, and the car next to me has a "system" in their car that's so loud and heavy on the base it's actually causing the overpass on which we're stuck to shake beneath us.

That, for me, is Pride.  It's a giant clusterfuck of people who are all there for a variety of disparate reasons, who are hot, hungry, overly drunk, puking in the grass, and who can't help but be certain to stumble directly in front of your feet, causing you to spill your own $10 solo cup of flat beer.

It must've been around 2008 when this charade lost its charm, for me.  An event that was created to commemorate the Stonewall Riot of 1969, to show a stance of solidarity and unity, and to let the world know that we are people, too, and that our rights matter no longer seems to stand for that.

Instead, we use it to hold yet another variation of White Party Weekend...or Southern Decadence...or Bearquake...or Lazy Bear Weekend...or IML...

We've taken an event that was supposed to unify us as a single community and turned it into a circuit party.

L.A., San Diego, and Long Beach Pride all have a parade that's free to the public, but the actual festival requires an entrance fee.  Forgive me for being offended, but a community event designed to bring the community together should never assess a fee for entry.  That specifically goes against the very concept of a "community," as it excludes those without the ability to pay.

"But, Pride has expanded over the years, and now includes concerts, bands, rallies, dances, parties...how ELSE are you going to pay for all that?"

Well, here's my answer - that's not the purpose of Pride.

New York City has it right - the street fair and parade are free, and the individual events are privately run and ticketed events.

You know you're doing Pride wrong when you have a V.I.P. entrance and special privileges.  THAT'S not "community;" that's "commercialism."

Pride has devolved into something that occurs simply because "it always has," and anytime someone comes out with an argument of feasibility or criticism, they're labeled an "internal homophobe," a "naysayer," or accused of attempting to destroy the event.

We, as the gay community, have become the Republican Party - no dissent from within.  We all have to tow the same line, and not make a fuss, or we're out like last year's Prada.

This is largely due to the fact that the very same leaders whose efforts and battles we are supposed to be celebrating have refused to turn the reins over to the next generation.  They still act like Pride is the only game in town, and without it, all other events would fail to occur.  As any event producer worth their snuff will tell you, the show will go on, with or without you.

I've endured countless planning committee and board meetings in which anytime I voice a contrary opinion or point of view, I'm shot out of the sky.

"Why can't you just give it a rest, and let us do our thing," they'll scream.  "Why do you always have to tear everything down?"

And this is where the back and forth of "communication" breaks down.  Regardless of whatever words come out of my mouth from that point forward, they're not listening.  They don't want to hear it.  I'm just being difficult, and nothing that I say could possibly be either accurate or helpful, as I'm just trying to tear them down.

Nothing satisfies their clearly rhetorical query of, "Well, what do you suggest we do differently?"

Oftentimes, I've already laid out for them my suggestions three or four minutes prior, but they were too busy "not hearing" what I was saying to hear what I suggested.  And thus, I get frustrated with them.  I've already given you the answers to your question; why the hell do I need to go back and tell you the exact same thing all over again?  If you'd just stop skimming the text and letting your predisposed hatred of my position block up your ears, you'd have gotten this point minutes ago, and we could have hashed it out, and come up with something great.  Instead, you're insisting that we "stay the course."

Once I give up on that manner of attack, I get hit with the, "Why can't we do both" argument, often from the people who most frequently complain that they've overcommitted themselves to so many events that they're just exhausted and have worked themselves sick.  That's not to say that they haven't, but they've answered their own question before they've even asked, leaving me to wonder, "When did I ever say that we couldn't?"

Largely, the reason we can't do both comes down to resources, both financial and human.  The LGBT community is overwhelmed with charity events, fundraisers, tea dances, circuit parties, festivals, title contests, and gay cruises...and THEN, there's Pride.

I kind of feel like we've got an entire year filled with parties and events, and Pride, as a community event, has been cheapened as we have gradually turned it into the Rainbow Party.

I'm never against a party - hell, I love to host them - but, is this really the best way for us to unite our community?

This Pride season, I would like for everyone who celebrates to take a moment to remember why these events were started, as opposed to how we celebrate. If Pride, for you, is just an excuse to get overly drunk in public, make a spectacle of yourself, and assert your right to feel like it's okay to limit the festivities to only specific groups of people (i.e. - "straights and families not welcome"), YOU are doing it wrong.

I urge each of you to boycott so-called "Pride" events where you have to pay to get into the festival; to refuse to pay to get into an exclusive party; to refuse to pay to be part of a parade. I urge each of you to throw your OWN goddamned parties, at your own expense, and give back to your community, not by going to the festival and lining the pockets of community organizations who seek nothing more than to fund their own agendas and profit off of your "higher disposable income," but by celebrating what it means to be a community.

Welcome in your neighbors and friends, straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or neuter, and foster community growth by getting to know people and show them who you are; who we are.  This isn't about who can throw the biggest dance party, how many vendors you can get in the festival, or how many V.I.P.s you can get to grace your festival - it's about building relationships and letting the world know that we are all equal.

If you think Pride is just about a big party, you don't have the first clue about why we celebrate.

I Am Not Under Attack

Americans are nothing, if not alarmists.  Somebody, somewhere, is current being targeted by another group, and believe their plight to be some kind of grand conspiracy.

There are, of course, cases where systematic prejudice and targeting on the part of elected officials and people who have the money - women's reproductive rights, for example, have been increasingly been limited in areas of the country where high concentrations of stupid people tend to live; similarly, those areas consistently see a higher incidence of hate crimes based on actual or perceived minority status.

West Hollywood, however, is not one of those places.  Nor are San Francisco or New York, for that matter.  The first two, in particular, are bastions for the weird, the unusual, the unaccepted, and the minority - they are cities in which gay men have made for themselves a safe space where they can go largely unmolested by those aforementioned stupid people.  What is trouble, for me, is the growing movement among a certain demographic of gay men (the 40-60 crowd who will soon assume the role of "Gay Elders) to participate in a "take back the streets" movement of their own.

Straight people, women, and lesbians are, according to these tinfoil Muir cap wearers, encroaching upon their lifestyle, and they are being persecuted just for being gay men!  No place is safe, anymore?  They've taken over the parks, the restaurants, the bars, and even the parking spaces!  Why, those mouthy lesbians have the sheer audacity to suggest there needs to be a safe space for them!  How DARE they, in our city?

"Why is it," posited one very visible activist in the WeHo community, "That a city that is 44% gay men, and only 3% lesbian, has a dedicated space for lesbians and not ONE dedicated space for gay men?"

When I attempted to counter this by saying, "What the hell are you talking about?  You have an entire fucking city dedicated to being a gay man!" I was promptly blocked from his Facebook profile.  Apparently, pointing out the fact that, of the 31 bars in West Hollywood, the vast majority of them cater to an almost entirely male clientele, that it has a store dedicated not only to leather, but exclusively to men's leatherwear, and that there's not a bar or restaurant that doesn't openly accept gay men and their groups (for fear of being drummed out of town), is heresy to these men.

It goes without saying that this burgeoning pro-male-only movement is bought into mainly by men over the age of 40, and almost exclusively by people who identify primarily as "Caucasian" - they are, after all, the only people who have experienced only one type of discrimination in their lives, rather than being a target for several reasons.  People who share other minority characteristics (such as race or perceived disability) tend to find people who ascribe to this conspiracy theory as being, and I quote, "ridiculous," "unfounded," and "preposterous."

But, there's a part of me that gets it, I'm afraid to say.  These men who have been persecuted by stupid people for most of their lives, few of whom grew up with the levels of support and generally omnipresent acceptance that today's LGBT youth tend to enjoy, feel that the lifestyle that they so valiantly set out to carve for themselves is at risk of being taken away from them; that who they are, what they stand for, and the contributions they've made to the LGBT movement no longer matter.

They are, unbeknownst to them, experiencing the horrible feeling of what it's like to be in the majority. They are afraid of losing all the ground they've managed to gain in the name of acceptance and homogenization, and that fear inevitably leads to irrational behavior.  This must be, I imagine, what white, male Southerners felt like the first time they lost a job opportunity to a "darky," or the first time a black person refused to give up their seat for them.  It is a fear based in self-preservation, and those fears often lead to conspiracy theorist tendencies.

What offends me more, however, is the rhetoric used by these men that so closely resembles the arguments and accusations put forth by those who are so frequently the ACTUAL oppressors of their lifestyle - the Christofascists and Republicans who see fit to treat us as if we are diseased parasites, encroaching upon their ways of life to corrupt their kids and infect them all with AIDS.

When I see statements like, "Why can't the lesbians just stay on THEIR side of town," I want to curb check them.  If you will kindly remember your gay history, the reason we have been fighting for recognition and equality is because, not that long ago and even still is most of this nation, gay men are expected to stay in "their" bars, and keep their behavior either behind closed doors or out of town, entirely.

When someone says to me, "Why do women always have to INVADE our safe spaces?  This is a place just for us," I want to punch them in the face.  This is exactly what we, as gay men, have had to overcome just to achieve the level of safety we enjoy in only a handful of largely major cities in this nation.  To deny them access on the basis of their gender is the act of a stupid person - it's like segregating water fountains and building entrances.

When a gay man complains to me about how, "There aren't even that many straight people, here!  Why do THEY have a park for their kids, and funding for THEIR events," I want to beat them to a pulp.  You have an entire goddamned city dedicated to your existence, and the fact that those "breeders" aren't avoiding that public park for fear that you're having sex in the bushes is something of a major advancement.  What do you want, a fucking pissoir on every sidewalk and a gloryhole in every toilet stall?  We've been fighting to have access to these parks for both our children (either natural or adopted) and ourselves (without being accused of being sex offenders) for nearly fifty years!

While I openly sigh and argue with these men, I take comfort in the fact that, like the anti-gay peers in their own age group, they will eventually die.  I love many men who fall into this age demographic, and to be fair, most of the ones I keep around in my life do not ascribe to this kind of asshattery, but while the tiniest part of me shares their fears of being homogenized, I can recognize that this, luckily, is the stupid part of my brain that can be trumped by both reason and logic, so long as I let my better sense prevail.

And to all you 40 to 60-year-old men who do not don the tinfoil Muir cap, I salute you - you're doin' it right.