I don't know. I suppose I may have let the fact that I adore the man tint my perception of what it was that I was appreciating about this. I do take your point that in comparison to earlier activists who literally put their lives on the line, this kind of looks like shit. But... I don't know. I want to live in a world where gay people DON'T have a responsibility to be all Gay Pride in everyone's face all the time just to have our rights be ensured. I want to live in a world where being gay is no bigger or smaller a thing than being straight. I'm not saying people shouldn't take great joy in being gay, nor that they shouldn't talk about it as much as they want, but that "as much as they want" is the point. I do think we've all got the right to have our sex lives be as private as we want them to be. It's not just an issue of being harassed or not; it's an issue of how much you want your personal life on display, you know? He's always been a guy who's been pretty closed-mouthed about his personal life with the media, and I think that's his right. So - I don't know. I'm torn. On the one hand I agree with you. And on the other hand I respect him for behaving as if his sexuality is not a big deal and for making it clear, in his own quiet way, that the media has no right to make it a big deal unless he says go.
I guess I tried to get at this in part in my last paragraph, where I said I liked his way of handling it as a complement to more traditional activism. But without more traditional activism this wouldn't do a damn thing.
Also, I think there have been some misconceptions in the media about to what degree he tried to hide his sexuality. What he had basically done for years is kind of summarized in one oft-repeated quote on the Frasier message boards [oh lord I don't believe I just copped to knowing that]: "My life's an open book, but I'm not going to read it to you." He lived with Brian whasisname for years, he thanked him in Emmy speeches, he dedicated his performance in Curtains to him. He never tried to hide his sexuality. He just never made a hue and cry of it. I guess, to me, he symbolizes the sort of society I'd like to live in, where the hue and cry isn't necessary, where everyone can get married and no one will flinch when they see two men holding hands. I know the activism has been so so necessary, and I admire it tremendously because I find it hard to put my own life in an activist context that way. It feels like making my own life into a piece of political kindling. I don't want λ and me reduced to "a lesbian couple", I don't want us to be reduced to our respective genitalia/genders and for people to think of us first and foremost as women who have sex with one another. I want us to be Kylie and λ. And yet it's the activists who came before who made it possible for me to experience that as much as I have. I think what DHP's coming out with so little fanfare really stirred up in me is that I wish things were as easy as he's made it seem. I think I got proud of him for making things seem easy. Which, you're right, probably doesn't make much sense.
That got really long and probably really boring. I apologize.
(One parting shot, though: he confused the hell out of the media with the way he handled it, and seeing their scandalmongering get cut out from under them and reading the confused and therefore hostile statements - "he carefully buried the reference to his partner in the sixth paragraph..." - leaves me highly amused.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 08:46 pm (UTC)I guess I tried to get at this in part in my last paragraph, where I said I liked his way of handling it as a complement to more traditional activism. But without more traditional activism this wouldn't do a damn thing.
Also, I think there have been some misconceptions in the media about to what degree he tried to hide his sexuality. What he had basically done for years is kind of summarized in one oft-repeated quote on the Frasier message boards [oh lord I don't believe I just copped to knowing that]: "My life's an open book, but I'm not going to read it to you." He lived with Brian whasisname for years, he thanked him in Emmy speeches, he dedicated his performance in Curtains to him. He never tried to hide his sexuality. He just never made a hue and cry of it. I guess, to me, he symbolizes the sort of society I'd like to live in, where the hue and cry isn't necessary, where everyone can get married and no one will flinch when they see two men holding hands. I know the activism has been so so necessary, and I admire it tremendously because I find it hard to put my own life in an activist context that way. It feels like making my own life into a piece of political kindling. I don't want λ and me reduced to "a lesbian couple", I don't want us to be reduced to our respective genitalia/genders and for people to think of us first and foremost as women who have sex with one another. I want us to be Kylie and λ. And yet it's the activists who came before who made it possible for me to experience that as much as I have. I think what DHP's coming out with so little fanfare really stirred up in me is that I wish things were as easy as he's made it seem. I think I got proud of him for making things seem easy. Which, you're right, probably doesn't make much sense.
That got really long and probably really boring. I apologize.
(One parting shot, though: he confused the hell out of the media with the way he handled it, and seeing their scandalmongering get cut out from under them and reading the confused and therefore hostile statements - "he carefully buried the reference to his partner in the sixth paragraph..." - leaves me highly amused.)