(no subject)

[rm]

Despite my whining, directing makes me hot, and we're making good progress.

I hate my gf's comprehensives. I want to make it better but there's little I can do and no time for it besides. The whole process seems arbitrarily torturous, which I realize is the point, but really sucks when it's happening to someone you care about as opposed to existing merely in a conceptual and exacting manner. Obviously, she's more than equal to it, but still -- suckage.

Tomorrow I'll be home and able to chill by 8pm, and I'm really grateful for that too. Especially since we're doing a three hour rehearsal on Thursday.

Finally, remember the story of the kid who was being sent to some camp by his parents so he wouldn't be gay anymore? Well, it looks like it was effective at least in the short term. The whole story makes me sad. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=7428306&blogID=39349496&Mytoken=20050809220730

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I use vague in the sense that it's employed in a very general fashion in the Zach case, as opposed to dealing with the specifics. From the beginning Zach's plight (if it can be called that) was defined in terms of The Battle Over Homosexuality, and pretty much ignored the parent/child dynamic, not to mention the idea of responsibility for one's decisions.

RM has some issues (clearly) with my use of the word consequences, but didn't bother to visit my blog to get more detail before banning me. What I meant by that was that being sent to Love in Action was a consequence of Zach's decision to come out. He made an adult decision to act on his orientation and become openly gay. Consequently he ended up being sent to reparative therapy.

Deciding to live as a gay person is a big decision and, despite what RM states, it's not the kind of choice that one can unmake without great difficulty. At sixteen years of age, Zach decided to cross a line, and it was pretty clear from the outset that he didn't anticipate the kind of backlash he was about to experience. Someone older, and with a commensurate amount of common sense, would have seen the result coming and handled things differently. Given that Zach lacks the life experience to make those kinds of decisions appropriately, he took the course he chose and this was the outcome.

I am not at all lacking in compassion on this issue. However, I choose the route of genuine compassion, which is to not pick sides. This mess hurt Zach, but it hurt his family, too. Just because I don't have a lot in common with Zach's parents (and I don't) doesn't mean I'm going to simply ignore them. Or, worse yet, vilify them.

As for Love in Action itself: there's nothing going on there in terms of discipline that doesn't happen in, say, the military. RM seems to have a real problem with shaving, but daily shaving is part of military discipline, too. Like it or not, we life in a society where unkempt hair (on the head or on the body) is a control issue. There's nothing inherently vicious about enforcing strict behavioral standards. It may suck, but it's not vicious.

[splix.livejournal.com]

I can only reply from my heart on this issue. I'd prefer to keep it out of rm's LJ; please email me at splix71 at yahoo dot com if you'd like to continue this dialogue.

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

The military does not insist that women shave their legs; they insist that men be clean-shaven. One is an arbitrary indicator of "femininity", whereas the other is a matter of grooming. That's the difference.

Enforcing a behavioral standard that has no purpose except to enforce an arbitrary standard of behavior is, in many cases, abusive.

THe military is a volunteer organization. LOve In Action is not.

I agree that ths kid made a mistake in coming out- when I first heard of his story, I was shocked by his decision. I would never have come out to the adults in my home life at that age, because I knew their views; I did what kept me safe. My first thought was to question why he was so determined to come out. HOwever, we don't know what his home life was like before. Maybe he was confident of his parents love; maybe he thought they would love and accept him no matter what his orientation (surprise!) Maybe he was not aware of how strongly homophobic they were.

[sola.livejournal.com]

and as a somewhat random aside, the military insists that men be clean shaven because A: it can be a form of identity concealment, and B, and more importantly: they don't want someone on the battlefield to grab your beard and pull you down onto their weapon. (no long hair for the same reason.) it's pure praticality, and as the idea of shaving's original context was clearly an example of enforced gender-types, i don't understand why it's being brought up.


As for the kid, yes: it was kind of a foolish thing for him to do, but he couldn't have known that. God forbid he should expect the emotional support of his family in a difficult circumstance.

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

as a somewhat random aside, the military insists that men be clean shaven because A: it can be a form of identity concealment, and B, and more importantly: they don't want someone on the battlefield to grab your beard and pull you down onto their weapon. (no long hair for the same reason.) it's pure praticality, and as the idea of shaving's original context was clearly an example of enforced gender-types, i don't understand why it's being brought up.

Thanks for that information! That makes perfect sense. And I agree, it is a totally different thing than forcing someone to shave their legs to conform with a standard of gender. I know plenty of dykes who shave their legs.

it was kind of a foolish thing for him to do, but he couldn't have known that.

Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.