I was born a white male. A white gay male, and I don’t celebrate being white or male. So, why should I celebrate being gay[?] That’s my opinion on the whole thing.
Set Phasers to Deconstruct (I am so funny)
Systems of race and gender privilege work in part on the insistence that such privileges are merely the natural consequences of real and immutable bodily difference. The reproduction of male privilege, for example, requires a repeated assertion of the naturalness of sex difference, the superiority of male characteristics, and the consequently natural social inequality that stems directly from this difference. Half of Weir’s statement is an argument frequently (and unfortunately) made by some parts of the gay rights movement: we are born gay and therefore deserve the same rights as those afforded to people who are born Black, women, etc. But Weir goes a couple obnoxious steps further, as I see it.
First, he begins by contextualizing his comments within the rhetoric of a white-like-me boys club insistence on the serendipity of being born a white male – a long-time strategy that denies the active ways in which whites claim and maintain privilege by insisting on the accident of their skin color and gender.
Second, rather than merely drawing an analogy between various in-born characteristics, Weir’s move from “white male” to “white gay male” is an argument for gay rights that unabashedly hitches a ride on the white supremacist train. In other words, Weir’s argument is one that seeks to re-assert the contested rights of gayness by linking them to the more stable privileges of whiteness.
And finally, even as he insists upon white and male privilege, he makes his assertion invisible through the all-too-familiar switch-a-roo: we’re not the racists – it’s the people of color who keep talking about race: exactly the rhetorical nonsense we see in Glenn Beck calling Obama racist, or Arizona outlawing Latino Studies programs. Having conflated white gay maleness, Weir is then able to make this very same right-wing argument work for gay identity. By insisting that a “celebration” of gayness would be as invalid as a celebration of whiteness or maleness, Weir makes his most powerful argument for gay rights: that it needn’t be celebrated because it is as obvious as white or male rights, and that those who do celebrate it are misinformed, like – (and here is the unambiguous white-like-me move where Weir argues for his inclusion within white, male solidarity) – those who argue for Latino or Black studies.
It is through what Allen Berube calls “gay whitening practices” like this, that “gay stays white.” It’s not hard to find a number of other examples: racially exclusive gay clubs, the unspoken racial politics of marriage, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or the “gay is the new Black” rhetoric of magazines like the Advocate come to mind. In all of this is the profound and sad failure of many white gay men to think critically about white, male privilege. That’s my opinion on the whole thing.
I don't agree with your opinion, and I think you missed Weir's point. Having followed him for a while now, I think I have a sense of his beliefs. I believe he would have said the same thing if he were, say, African American and female. In fact, in another interview, he said used the traits "male, with green eyes." He's simply saying that he was born gay, so he doesn't see the value in celebrating it. He would rather celebrate something he accomplished rather than something that was there when he was born. You can argue with the validity of this all you want, but don't take Weir's words out of the context of his value system to argue your point. He may well fail to see the privilege of his male-ness and white-ness (as so many do), but I don't think that was his intention here.
ReplyDeleteHe probably would not have said the same thing if he were African American and female - assuming that he'd be interested in arguing against racism and sexism: primary methods of doing which have been to articulate a race and gender consciousness that *does* celebrate those otherwise subjugated identities. I'm not sure this is an argument worth having though, since we can't know.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the point I was trying to make was that being white is not an accident and that this viewpoint is part of the way white privilege reproduces itself by masking its active reproduction as mere accident of skin color.
Finally, I would argue that this *is* evidence of Weir's value system, isn't it? I'm arguing about context: the context of making claims for gay rights within systems of white and male supremacy.
Your comments. . .zzzzzzzz.. huh, what?
ReplyDeleteYou obviously took Johnny's comments out of context. You need to listen again. I'm black and I get exactly what he's saying.
ReplyDeleteObviously he didn't *intend* for his comments to be read as arguments for colorblindness-but what does that matter? The point is that he can be clueless enough about white privilege to say/imply things like "i couldn't help being born white! it's not my fault!".
ReplyDelete(And for the person above me: what does it matter that you're black?)
i like your blog. you should post stuff more often.