• Home
  • About
  •  

    ノン気

    Gay Patriot West takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to task for claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Well, he’s more taking gay and liberal groups to task for not calling BS:

    Yesterday, we had a lesbian claiming she had a little crush on this man who, even she acknowledged, would “probably have [her] killed” because he was so forthright in “calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration.” [Yeah, you know, if there’s anything it’s hard to find on the world stage, it’s a head of state who’s willing to score cheap political points off President Bush.–SRK]

    As bad as those on the gay left claim this Administration to be, it doesn’t execute gay people. Yes, we should fault the president and his team for failing to repeal the pernicious Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Policy preventing gays from serving openly in the military and should take the president to task for endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment. But, there is a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and open service of gays in the military and murdering gay citizens as matter of state policy.

    It’s amazing that some people on the gay left are so caught up with their hatred of Bush, that they refuse (or, are otherwise slow) to condemn the leader of a nation whose government does just that — murder its own gay and lesbian citizens.

    A good rule of thumb is that anyone from anywhere at all who says his country doesn’t have homosexuals doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Since I’ve been living in Tokyo, I’ve met guys from Bhutan, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria out at the bars–all just as up on Britney’s new single and this season’s Prada as any fag in the Castro. One of the most annoying skeeves my friends and I currently run into is from–I’m not making this up–Papua freakin’ New Guinea. And as for Iran…ha! I can’t count the number of Iranian guys who’ve hit on me since I’ve been living in Tokyo.

    Now, yes, we can get into the usual tiresome identity-politics discussion of what exactly constitutes a homosexual. (And I might note that when I first arrived in Japan, people told me they didn’t have gays here, either, which has to be just about the most clueless thing I’ve ever heard.) But the men I’ve met from developing countries have mostly said something on the order of, “Well, sure, I’m married and have children. I have to be. My country is not America. Don’t get me wrong–I respect my wife, and I love my kids–but you don’t know how lucky you are to be able to have a partner.”

    BTW, I know it’s pointless to get exercised over this sort of thing, but why do people insist on being so idiotic?

    Protesters also assembled at Columbia. Dozens stood near the lecture hall where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak, linking arms and singing traditional Jewish folk songs about peace and brotherhood, while nearby a two-person band played “You Are My Sunshine.”

    “You Are My Sunshine”? An allusion to Silverlake Life, maybe? But surely that would be way to esoteric for even a gay-friendly lefty audience to pick up on, especially when most of them were probably in second grade back then? Odd.

    Added later: I should have known Eric would have posted about this already:

    I’m not holding my breath either. Feminists who once condemned the veil now allow that it might be “liberating,” and gay activists in Berkeley dismissivly compared the systematic murder and torture of Palestinian gays to what “happens in every western society, including in San Francisco.” And what about the treatment of the murdered Pim Fortuyn?

    Maybe because I’m friends with a lot of Brits and Europeans, I still hear Fortuyn referred to pretty frequently. But Eric’s right that the gay left sure as hell hasn’t seized on the opportunity to hold him up as an example of how tragically gays can be persecuted.

    Added on 26 September: Naturally, one of Columbia’s gay groups has gotten into the act (via Eric). Andrew Sullivan reports:

    “We stand in solidarity with our peers in Iran, but we do not presume to speak for them. We cannot possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran. Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely. Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as “gay”, “lesbian”, or “homosexual” to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms “same-sex practices” and “same-sex desire” in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad’s presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world.”

    Ahmadinejad was right, you see? There are no gays in Iran. Just ask the Queer Studies Department.

    Having spent my entire adult life toggling (not always successfully) back and forth between American English and Japanese, I’ll certainly agree that you have to be exceedingly careful when using words from one language and culture to describe abstractions in another.

    It’s the tone that’s grating: We Westerners, with our inadequate terminology and our resistance to examining deep “issues” unless a thugocrat shows up to give a lecture, just can’t understand how complex all those people from other cultures are. But if that’s the case, where does the CQA get off calling anyone in Iran its “peer”? The relationship between their sexual identity and their “same-sex practices” isn’t like ours, after all.

    Added on 1 October: Eric has still more reaction to the subject-changing debate that’s resulted from Ahmadinejad’s remarks:

    I’m sure that a good defense of the author’s thesis could be made too. In theory, I might be willing to venture such a defense, but I’m not about to take my cue from a murdering tyrant who believes in executing homosexuals — whether “homosexuals like in your country” or homosexuals like in his country.

    It’s a legitimate topic, but I think it’s rather unsettling to have to parse a murderer’s words and judge their theoretical meaning according to the trends of the latest Post Modernist jargon.

    Yeah, at least when the post-structuralist brigade was lining up to explain away Paul de Man’s pro-Nazi writings, it wasn’t discussing someone who’d actually presided over a murderous government.

    7 Responses to “ノン気”

    1. fenneke says:

      Hi Sean,

      Enlighten me here please: what’s the deal with ‘the treatment of the murdered Pim Fortuyn’?

      He was murdered by a extremely left wing animal rights activist, who feared all his hard work might be in vain if Fortuyn would gain power. It was actually pretty cool that all the extremely right wing people accepted Fortuyn being gay, because they tend to be not very fond of anything different of themselves (gay, feminist, leftwing, muslim, what-have-you).

      Does the world outside Holland hold a different picture of him?

    2. fenneke says:

      PS to avoid confusion: please note that I’m talking about *extremely* left/right wing, not comparable with your average republican/democrat division.

    3. Sean Kinsell says:

      Well, I think what Eric was referring to was simply the fact that Fortuyn’s name isn’t constantly bandied about when activists are playing up the omnipresent homophobia Against Which We Must All Be Vigilant. I don’t know that people outside Holland have much of an image of him at all—he was branded a far-right, anti-immigrant lunatic in most of the news reports I saw about him up to and after his death, and then the issue just kind of vanished.

    4. fenneke says:

      Yes, but you said ‘I still hear Fortuyn referred to pretty frequently’. Is that in connection with him being gay, or just him being the anti-immigrant lunatic that he was? And do people know he was not murdered because of his anti-immigrant views?

    5. Sean Kinsell says:

      I can’t read up on these things in the original Dutch, but my understanding had always been that Fortuyn’s assassin stated that his reason was broader than just animal rights–not that he mentioned immigration specifically, but that he thought Fortuyn was targeting the powerless. All reports I saw on the topic indicated that he was referring to immigrants from Islamic countries.

    6. fenneke says:

      :) sorry to spam you with all those questions, i’m just curious about what the world outside Holland knows/hears about those things.

    7. Sean Kinsell says:

      No problem at all. Finding out how others view one’s own country is a real education.

    Leave a Reply