October 2010 Archives

David Malebranche's "Dear Oprah" RE: HIV Sensationalism
By Trevor on October 13, 2010 8:42 AM | No Comments

Lifelube has an incredible open letter to Oprah from the inimitable David Malebranche in response to her recent show on a woman who sued her ex-husband for $12 million after she contracted HIV from him. Malebranche asks, "Have you learned nothing since the JL King disaster in 2004?" (which prompted a national panic about the "down low" and Black male sexuality generally):

The acidic taste of bile that coated the back of my throat as I heard her story was in response to the superficial and sensationalistic manner in which you handled the topic, and how it was apparent that you and your staff have learned absolutely nothing in the 6 years since you originally interviewed J.L. King on your "Down Low" episode in 2004.
Yes, you can claim that for this updated version of your "Down Low" show, you actually included the fact that publically "heterosexual" White men and men of other races are equally capable of having secretive homosexual affairs as their Black counterparts. And yes, this new version of J.L. King who again opportunistically sashayed onto your stage to promote himself now uses the word "gay" to describe his sexual identity (partly as a consequence of the fame and fortune he attained from appearing on your show). However, everything else about the show remained stuck in a metaphorical time warp in which Black women are portrayed as simple victims with no personal responsibility or accountability when it comes to their sexual behavior, and Black men are projected as nothing more than predatory liars, cheaters and "mosquito-like" vectors of disease when it comes to HIV.

I felt like I was like watching a train wreck or an car accident about to happen: it was so awful that despite wanting to turn it off, I found myself transfixed and could not bring myself to pick up the remote or change the channel. From the ominous background music and blurred images on the screen when discussing Black men being intimate with one another (God forbid!), to your declaration that reading your guest's husband's sexually explicit emails and messages on gay websites "blew your mind," the way in which your show was staged did nothing to forward the conversation on the current facts or the social context that currently drives secretive same sex behavior among Black men and the current HIV racial disparity in the United States. Instead, what came across was a clear, fear-mongering and hyperbolic message: "Black women, look out for your husbands, they could be lying and cheating on you with other men and putting you at risk for HIV." It was bad enough that 6 years ago, after your original "Down Low" show, you single-handedly launched a major media and cultural hysteria where Black women across the country were now searching for signs of how they could tell if their men were "on the Down Low" through stereotypical signs and ridiculously offensive generalizations about how homosexual men think and act. Your show also helped J.L. King and other self-proclaimed "HIV experts" make a lot of money off this capitalistic, fear-based industry to promote their books, movies and narcissistic products on the so-called "Down Low." It did nothing, however, but open new wounds and put salt in the old scars caused by centuries of sexual exploitation and calculated pathologizing of Black bodies in the United States and internationally. The way you and your staff have handled this topic has done nothing but widen the already irreparable rifts between Black men and women, as well as between Black heterosexual and non-heterosexual peoples."

You just gotta read the rest. It's incredible.

In Solidarity with Chris Armstrong
By Max on October 1, 2010 6:56 AM | No Comments

Graphic designed by Michigan's Spectrum Center in the wake of the Armstrong attacks

Hate speech, here we go again... If the USA moves fast in terms of modern technologies, I am afraid the same cannot be said about sex and social justice. Quite the contrary: a few days ago, we had to face the failure of the repeal of this ridiculous, anachronistic policy - Don't Ask, Don't Tell - and only after a massive response from the CNN story on Shirvell do we now finally have word this morning that Shirvell has *finally* been suspended (but not fired!) by his boss the Attorney General, who went on CNN to defend Shirvell's right to free speech. This guy spends hours of his spare time blogging against the MSA president, Chris Armstrong, and has recourse to the most offensive, insulting, threatening words to justify his hateful obsession, stating it is nothing but a political campaign and that his homophobia is somewhat sponsored by the freedom of speech.

Since Armstrong became the MSA president, he became an obsession of a rather peculiar kind for Andrew Shirvell, who started observing his target in the most disturbing way, including gossiping about Armstrong's friends and physically approaching his private home. It would be pathetic and maybe laughable if we were not worried about Shirvell's behavior, but at this point, his obsession cannot be taken as only political and shows evidence of stalking and harassment. Of course freedom of speech is an undisputable principle in the USA, and queers out there really know the price to pay to enjoy and maintain the freedom of speech, so the question is not to turn Shirvell into the victim of some sort of queer intifada because we expect the Attorney General to spank him, but rather to understand that the freedom of speech cannot be abused to promote a hateful rhetoric (against queers, or Jews, or Afro-Americans, or... the list is much too long), precisely because the goals of any hateful speech is to silence a targeted individual or community.

Using the freedom of speech to ultimately challenge other people's agency cannot be socially constructive. We should not address the issue of banning hate speech as a matter of censorship, but rather as a way of understanding the practice of the freedom of speech from a collective, social point of view. (I believe, like so many queers after Oscar Wilde, that only works of art should have this possibility to be disconnected from ethics and politics, precisely because the realm of aesthetics is not grounded on the quest for goodness, but the quest for beauty.) The point is not to censor but to learn how to feel and phrase one's emotions and values. That's when the concept of respect becomes crucial in terms of articulating the freedom of speech with the art of living together in the same, yet extremely diversified, nation (it's horrible I feel like I am preaching right now...).

One of my fears, in this painful story raised by Shirvell's threatening obsession with Armstrong, is the hypothesis that Shirvell could be one of us. The history of homophobia is full of examples of self hatred, closeted homosexuals who not only cannot come out but spend their energy hating shameless queers out there. Remember J. Edgar Hoover, president of the FBI during the years of McCarthyism, who made sure to include queers in the hunt witch? He put so much energy in breaking the lives of homosexual American citizens, and yet, he was over the rainbow even if he had constructed a special hell for people sharing his own sexuality. What is better for us: a straight homophobic guy or a closeted, self hating queen? This is just a horrible alternative. Let's say that we still believe in the possibility to have a society with friendly straight people and no more self hatred among queers because of homophobia. Clearly, the fight is not over.

As a University of Michigan graduate student, I feel it is important to declare my solidarity with Chris. As they have been saying on campus: Elected by us, respected by us. In solidarity with our chosen Michigan Student Assembly President Chris Armstrong.