Ceci n'est pas un blog.

Dear Gay America:

Congratulations on reaching an all-time high of $212.2 million in advertising revenue amongst gay broadcasters and publications. That's nice. Just a couple of quick questions, though:

1) How much of that cash is going into how many gay and lesbian bank accounts, and how much is going into mega-corporations like Viacom and wholly owned media corporations like the republican-owned Window Media? Perhaps I'm a bit bitter, but it sounds to me like your keeping those white bourgeois (save a few tokens, of course, when you're not objectifying and fetishizing minorities, that is) pockets and selling out our decreasingly rich cultural product to the diluted mainstream. And don't give me the "I hate show tunes" obsolete gay culture, post-gay bullshit. I'm all for evolution, but I'm not for complete and total assimilation.

2) Don't you feel a bit bought, gay America? over 200 million and no federal anti-discrimination protections, no immigration rights, no federalised partner benefits?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gay America has gone from being a movement, not a market.

Kisses and hopes for continued Planet Out dividends,

Mizez Slo

Dear Mizez Slocombe:

Please stop learning French verbs from American dessert menus. It's brûlé, not brulée.

Love You,

Mizez Slocombe

Brûlé: Part II

In the nearly two years that I have been blogging, or when I provide commentary on other corners of the web, I have taken care to be quasi-anonymous. In other words, I use the name Mizez Slocombe, which is an internet handle I have used for several years. People know when I say something and have a sense of continuity, but do not know the full identity of who is saying it. Not that I am scared of anything beyond the odd stalker or two – but after years of hearing about people getting fired from their jobs and hearing about other dastardly consequences of putting one's true name to the more-often-than-not indelible archive that is the internet, I thought it best for me, my reputation, my partner, and other people close to me that I keep my true identity inaccessible unless and until my communicating on the internet became my primary source of income. I am not completely paranoid about this, though, and reply to most all unsolicited e-mails and send e-mails to bloggers and the like using my real name. I did not deviate from this behaviour when I mailed Curry, did not ask him to keep my real name out of online discussion, and have come to find that this was stupid mistake.

     Madge's incendiary rant about the word "faggot" had an "emotional affect" on Adam Curry, and left Adam with the impression he was being called a bigot, just like I was left with the impression that just letting that 'faggot' comment fly would leave listeners with the impression that the word is as OK for broadcast and everyday use as 'nigger'. As a result, Adam Curry let it all hang out in a Daily Source Code that skewered Madge, skewered my e-mail, skewered me, and left the whole situation that I started in a gigantic mess. Madge/Richard made the mistake of not listening to the Daily Source Code to hear the epithet, took a lot of liberties in her rant, and Adam feasted on that – and somewhat rightfully so. What was most bothersome to me about Adam's rant, though I disagree, is that I was left with the impression that I was being lumped with Madge, being denigrated with Madge, and I found the mocking manner in which he read my e-mail to him on the air childish and completely unnecessary. And he used my full name (which thankfully is also the name of the former CEO of a company, so don't bother googling), which I will not mention here, but if you must you can hear it along with the rest of the Daily Source Code here. I was left a bit hurt and belittled, probably felt as misunderstood as Adam did, and the PR guy in me knew when I finished listening to the show that I was going to have to formulate a quick response to minimise damage, especially with my full name out there. So here it is (please forgive typos, the text box in which I typed the comments was rather small, and I'm the typo queen anyway):

      

Wow.

First and foremost, apologies for causing stress and a restless night when only dialogue and the pointing out of something was intended through my e-mail. I copied my freind Richard/Madge, as I was hearing you say on your show that you get bagillions of e-mails and I wanted to make sure my point was heard. I thank you for your quick response, which was a surprise.

I do hope you found e-mail comment civil. Although I am a staunch and committed supporter of the opportunity of expression in new media amongst the gay population (despite my misgivings with some of the content, and how content providers are or are not repsonsible for people’s ability to “get” the intent or lack of intent behind potentially offensive content), I am most certainly not endorsing the views and actions of all the Qpodders, Madge, or you.

Let me be clear in saying that I didn’t think you did one bigoted thing, Adam, and your actions defintely support everything you say about supporting the GLBT community in action and allowing us to have a places at the Podshow table. YOU ARE CLEARLY AND DEMONSTRATIVELY NOT A HOMOPHOBE. The reason I sent the e-mail is to point out what was, in my book, a surprising oversight, and let you know as a faithful listener of over a year and a media professional who has his ears glued on podcasting as a medium how I felt about it. Your show certainly is your show, and I think all of this discussion is subservient to your right to air whatever content you, Madge or anyone else want. Period.

Among the US gay population/culture/community/whatever, “Fa**ot” is indeed widely perceived as the most loaded of all the insulted words, along the lines of other epithets like the n-word. Fa**ot” is used in US youth and urban culture, most especially among schoolchildren, as the ultimate insult, the most often-used insult, and, I assert, the one that puts a person the lowest on the totem pole.

And yes, there has been some “taking back” of the word (and other words like “queer”, “queen”, et. al.) by using the words amongst ourselves, along the same lines of hip-hop culture and racial epithets. This practice is also quite controversial within the gay population, which is also, as you allude, going through big-time controversies over representations of ourselves as we ourselves discover along with the rest of the world that we are as diverse in personality and social expression as everyone else. But my opinion, my stand on the matter, is an agreement with Madge that “fa**ot” should be off limits – unless the context is super-abundantly clear to everyone that can hear the comment.

I agree with you that the insult to XM on the part of hoodhype was not clearly directed at gays, but the issue is the that it’s fair game to be used as an insult. I get your sense of morality regarding this and several other issues, and know you don’t intend to promote bigotry of any form in any way. But considering what I just said about how the word is perceived in the US, would you allow for the comment to play if they said “k**es” at XM? There’s bigoted associations of Jews in the media as well as homoesexuals of which I am sure you are well-aware, which I find equally offensive and destructive.

The reason I sent the e-mail was not to point out my personal feeling of marginalization, but to point out that it does cause massive grief to people who aren’t quite there yet with taking their own power – especially developing children. As for other things that cause potentially fatal grief for children, as in body image portrayals, I totally hear you and am with you, but considered that another discussion and was only dealing with what was before me.

Finally, Little Britain airs on BBC America, and considering that gays were used as a wedge issue in a hotly contested 2004 US election, we’re all smarting a little bit and perhaps a little too wary (point taken). I think the problem and frustration we have is that we can’t even have a healthy national discussion about homosexuality in the US for a host of reasons, some of which you mentioned.

I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you or anyone else who has questions (e-mail: mizezslocombe at gmail dot com) or something to say to me about this whole palaver.

     My years of training in communications came through for me. Although I am clear that I was not by any means the primary focus of Adam's ire, I had zero tolerance for damage to my reputation and wanted to ensure that Madge's opinions were Madge's and mine were mine. I hate sanitised, politically correct speech, but I feel that there are certain words like faggot that are just plain off-limits as an insult. That is all I was saying, and all I will continue to say. There were 254 (as of the time of writing this post) comments to the Daily Source Code episode responding to the situation on Adam's blog, and the only one mentioning me was mine. I did receive several e-mails, and I am happy to say all were positive. Richard saw how completely wrong she was, and posted a brilliantly apologetic podcast that also explained his stand on the matter. Adam and Richard kissed and made up. I got out of the situation relatively unscathed.

   So why, a week later, do I post about this, perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill? Firstly and selfishly, just like Adam and Richard, I needed to get that good old American "closure". Also, I waited a while to write these posts, as I wanted to ensure the polemic about the word 'faggot' was fully flushed out before the issues concerning of my anonymity being breached did not added another element to that discussion. But I did want to put the my full experience on record. Futhermore, I wanted to reiterate my stand about the word "faggot" in this venue and have it on record. To me, there's a difference between words that insult individuals 'asshole', 'cunt', etc.) and words that pejoratively distinguish groups of people as "the other". I find the latter unacceptable in modern public discourse. Finally, I wanted to post this as a lesson to anyone who desires to keep their identity anonymous on the net. I have nobody to blame but myself in the end for my name being released. I sent Adam the e-mail using my real name, and stupidly made the assumption that it would never be read on the air. While I did not give Adam Curry permission to use my name, I did not tell him not to – and there were consequences.

 

 

Brûlé: Part I

For over a year, I have been a fan of podcasting; and I have taken pleasure in seeing homegrown radio shows about every subject one can imagine pop up all over the internet. The dilettantish anthropologist and real-life media professional in me revels in watching the rises and falls, flames and arrows, and fortunes and misfortunes of a new communication medium from the beginning – and to see what happens as the medium is commodified. I am completely fascinated, and have developed some favourites.

    One of those favourites is Yeast Radio: an indescribably nasty, funny, annoying, profound, political, offencive, silly and in some ways brilliant show hosted by the "Jewish Bloated Lesbian" Madge Weinstein, a character played by the creative, savvy, and unabashedly human Chicagoan Richard Bluestein. The show is not for everyone, but there's definitely something available for everyone. As with many podcasts, one must be patient and be ready with the fast-forward button. Bluestein also runs an online community for GLBT podcasters, Qpodder, has one of the first videoblogs to hit the internet, writes RSS aggregator software for GLBT podcasts, and is always managing several projects at once. Richard Bluestein is also a personal friend of mine whom I admire very much.

    I also follow The Daily Source Code, a podcast hosted by new media pioneer, Dutch media darling and former US MTV DJ Adam Curry. Curry is also a co-founder of Podshow, a company bent on commercializing the podcasting medium while also, as I see it, keeping content as organic and diverse as possible. Podshow has paid agreements to include several kinds of Podcasters in the Podshow network: goofy couples, music groups, parents, religious content, wine – and Madge Weinstein's Yeast Radio. Most everyone who has been seriously into podcasting as a listener or content producer knows who Adam Curry is or has probably heard his name countless times. Because, you see, podcasters tend to get very "meta", talking about themselves and what has turned out to be a loosely close-knit community.

    Curry's show, like many a podcast, functions as an audioblog of sorts that covers prosaic happenings in Adam's life, promotion of podsafe music that is safe for podcasters to play without fear of RIAA reprisal and a few quirky features. Most importantly, the Daily Source Code also functions as a voice for Posdshow's development , and the development and promotion of podcasting itself. The show, like Yeast Radio, is a daily staple for me.

    In the middle of a Daily Source Code listen last week, a short promotion for a hip-hop podcast was aired on the show, and used the phrase  "fuck the faggots at XM" (XM is a rival US satellite radio company to Sirius Satellite Radio, who has an agreement with Podshow to air some of their content on channel 106). Woah. Hold the bus. In America, 'faggot' is an overused insult (along the lines of the word nigger for African-Americans) towards homosexuals, perceived homosexuals, and as I see it one of the nastiest put-downs for people that are not homosexual.  The use of the word is offencive to me, and I know that Adam is not by any means homophobic. So I sent Curry an e-mail to let him know my views, and copied Richard Bluestein to make sure the self-professedly busy Curry got the message:

Disappointing that you let the "fuck the faggots at XM" comment from hoodhype.com pormo (sic) fly, Adam. The context of the epithet's usage promotes antigay hate speech and perpetuates the notion that "faggot" is an okay pejorative. The National Mental Health association estimates that high schools students in the US hear degrading words like faggots 26 times a day, and contributing to the culture of having "faggot" be the ultimate insult in US youth and urban culture also contributes to the thousands of suicides by marginalized kids each year.

I request you address what may have been a careless mistake. Saying shit like that is not OK. At all.

5 minutes later, I was surprised to get a reply:

Hmm, I didn't even hear that part. Sorry.

OK. Fair enough. Shit happens. I forwarded the reply to Richard Bluestein, without comment, to let Richard know the communication was registered and no follow-up was required.

Then, Madge Weinstein had her say on Yeast Radio, letting it all hang out in a colourful, decidedly not work-safe, sometimes thought-provokingly saearing, sometimes damagingly irrational eight minute rant, which you can listen to by clicking here. And here's an excerpt from the show notes:

I’m pissed. Adam Curry allows bigoted, homophobic speech on his podcast and I’m pissed.

Howard Stern loves to use the word “fag” as a derogatory term, even though he clearly knows better.

What’s the difference between calling someone a “faggot” or a “chink” or a “nigger?” Why is it more acceptable to call someone a fag?

Queers don’t listen to Daily Source Code because we don’t want to be called faggots. We don’t want to be insulted like we’re still in the eighth grade anymore, asshole. Qpodders are “insular” because we treat each other as equals.

And then all hell broke loose, and I got a couple of very public hits in the crossfire.

More on that in Part II.

 

 

 

Commentaires

Je réponds à une observation. Désolé, Francophones, mais je ne masacre pas la langue Française quand mon Anglias est complexe. Donnez-moi un peu mois(ou ans?).

    I am highly reticent as a guest of this country to have strong political opinions on France's Affairs, but I will say this: France's problem is the polaric opposite of America's, in my opinion. France has protected its own workers to the point of near-paralysis (Am I wrong to think that France is shit-scared of having another May 1968 or 1995-96?), while America provides little to no safety net for people who find themselves without a job and don't have health coverage as a result of losing that job. There is no requisite system of contracts as there it exists in France (although mid-to-upper-level executives do oftentimes sign contracts, mainly as a means of lawsuit prevention), and companies are oftentimes free to fire people whenever they want as long as there is no harassment, entrapment, or discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, veteran status, and in some states and localities sexual orientation and gender expression. There is some union presence in America, but it is a rare case indeed in which issues or hiring and firing cause an uproar as the CPE has done. The prevailing belief is that the company should have the freedom to determine what benefits it bestows on employees that are laid off or fired, and that has brought about a world of poverty, ruined careers, ruined families, and endless stories of injustice. A common example: A fired executive I knew who made over $200,000 per year was left with no severance pay, a bill of $750 per month to provide his family with health insurance for a term limited to six months, and state-sanctioned unemployment benefits of only $200 per week that lasted three months. The unemployment benefits barely covered his insurance before any living costs!

    The French system of job protections and contracts is so complex that I would not even begin to claim I have a full understanding of the details and the reasons these protections came about, but I will say from my experience in the French office and my partner's experience as management that the protections, while seemingly just and bent on protecting the worker from many of the horrors I mention above, have become so restrictive that every hiring decision becomes a painful risk and every employee that doesn't work out can become a chronic headache that drains productivity and growth – and I've seen several unscrupulous employees hide behind the web of rules to get away with just about anything they want (within certain parameters) in the workplace. The problems with employment rules, as I see from my limited view, run far deeper than the recent flap concerning the CPE. The entire French employment contract system is screaming for an overhaul – via honest, rational, and compassionate dialogue with politicians that are a bit more in touch with the everyday worker and management – that protects employees from abuses in the name of profit (and I am of the belief that there are some things that are more important than profit), financial peril and career ruination – but also give employers more flexibility than they currently have to develop their businesses and create more jobs. I am deathly afraid that if France does not confront the inherent problems within her employment protections, they will be left with fewer choices about employment protections in the future...and I don't think France needs all of the bullshit that came with Margaret Thatcher, so I hope everyone comes to their senses soon. Things just can't go on like this. 

If I had to choose between the two systems as they exist, though, I would choose the French over the American. In my opinion, the consequences of the American system are far more dire than that of the French.

I'll write about prosperity, perception, and the American middle class in my next post.

 

Cher France:

Capitalism is here to stay until we find an economic system that fulfills everyone's basic needs (food, shelter, health care, a fully expressed personal life) but encourages innovation and contribution via incentive. The CPE protests only barricade the path to that solution. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Le capitalisme est ici pour s�jour jusqu'� nous trouvons une system economique que satisfait toutes les boisons (norriture, refuge, soins se sant�, une vie compl�tement �conc�), mais encourage la innovation via encouragement. Les protestations de CPE seulement barricadent le chemin � ca solution. Soigner la maladie, pas les indices. 

I heart NY

Dear New York:

I was delightfully, deliciously wrong. Most of you agree with me and support the transit workers, and the media is full o'crap.

Hang in there, and thanks for helping to stop 30 years of union-busting plutocracy!

Love And Free Health Insurance,

Miz xx

Back From Le Avocat

Because neither my partner nor I are French, our partnership counts for nothing in the eyes of French law in the realm of immigration. Being both foreign and gay, we do not have equal rights.

The only thing we could do as a couple is have special consideration if my partner sponsors me for an extended visitor's visa (which anybody can do in the end, regardless of relationship), and I would not be able to work or receive government benefits. I find this a bit disheartening, as it seems to encourage illegal work sitations and unfair distribution of government benefits – despite the fact that my partner will be paying the taxman and the social security coffers dearly.

If I want my own visa in which I can work and receive benefits such as health insurance, I have to do it on my own speed as an individual. Thankfully, this is more easily done than I allowed myself to believe, but this is the first time since leaving the US that I feel a bit discriminated against. Instead of swimming in bitters about it, I'm going to just assume that this is an unidentified crack through which we have fallen.

I still love France. I'm just a bit ticked at her today.

Transit Strike

Dear New York:

I've heard New Yorkers call the MTA workers "selfish", "unfair", and heaps of other nasty words that would make this blog a little less work friendly.

New York, I love you, and I hold you dear, but your reaction to this strike seems a bit self-absorbed and selfish to me. Yes, yes, I grant you that retirement at 50 is a bit unreasonable. However, if I'm inconvenienced for a few days so that working people who will never, ever come even close to the other side of six figures can keep their free health insurance (which we all have a right to have but that's another post) and a little bit more than a meager 3% annual raise, I consider those calories well spent. In a city that overwhelmingly voted against George W. Bush in the 2004 election, I'm beginning to wonder if many of you are just liberals of convenience.

Language is everything. In recent weeks when the SNCF (French Rail) and RATP (Métro/RER) were on strike, screens in stations throughout France called the action a mouvment social, or "Social Movement". At worst, the French media will call the action a grève, which is literally "grief" or "complaint". The media in America calls this action a Strike, a Walkout, or a Work Stoppage. Sometimes the media is a bit charitable and calls it a "labor action".

I suggest that you take on the radical idea of embracing something French, and considering this a mouvment social. Get into the world of your average MTA worker. Would you put up with the conditions of the NY subway system, the sometimes dangerous nastiness of the general public, or driving a big heavy bus through the frenetic NY Streets day in and day out without any room for accidents for the amount of pay and benefits they receive? Would you clean up and do refuse control (one of the most thankless and important jobs around) MTA facilities for the pay and benefits they receive? I strongly urge you to consider this. Also,  consider that perhaps YOU deserve some of the benefits MTA workers deserve to have as well.

I say put the social in social movement. Help those elderly women that you say MTA workers are victimizing by sharing a cab. Call people in your office and make sure they're navigating the situation with success. Share your car with your group of friends. If you're lucky enough to get to stay home, be a radical and have a "strike party" celebrating the fact that MTA workers are fighting for a better life for themselves and their families. I implore you not to take the easy, self-indulgent way out and make it all about you. I know from experience that New York and New Yorkers are better than that.

Your True Friend,

Mizez Slo

D'accord!

The French are obsessed with their own language, which suits me just fine. So obsessed they are that one of the most popular television shows in French history, was the language and literature show Apostrophes, hosted by Bernard Pivot (where Bravo's Inside The Actor's Studio 'What's your favourite word?' questionaire comes from), ended with hundreds of famous authors and other luminaries lining up behind a microphone to say their favourite word. I've just come up with mine: "d'accord", which is roughly translated as "OK".

I always loved the look of the word, alluding that things were not just "OK", but also agreed and understood – a statement saying: 'I am with you, I understand you, and at this small moment in time, we are sharing something here.'.  There's also the tone in which the oftentimes French say the words – a lilty sort of 'ding-dong!' that occurs to me as a verbal pat on the head from Mum. I'm finding this happens quite a bit with many commonplace French clichès: bonjour, merci, de rien, etc..   A linguistic warm fuzzy, if you will, in a place where one sometimes feels as if they are most fortunate if not spat upon. The French may be famous for treating strangers with an air of suspicion, but they do through you a bone once in a while. And that's completely d'accord with me.