While I normally agree with and enjoy Queers United, I have to disagree with them on a recent post of theirs regarding reading too much into this ad for iMovie:
After being alerted by constituents about a problematic ad for Apple‘s iMovie, we investigated these complaints and were disappointed to see the usually witty Mac advertisers resort to mocking transgender people in order to sell their product.
The ad features model Gisele Bundchen, who is supposed to be the embodiment of a home movie made using iMovie. After the Mac presents Gisele, the PC presents a person wearing a dress identical to Gisele’s, in a wig, with no breasts, a five o’clock shadow and an abundance of exposed chest hair.
Queers United also notes in the comments to its post that “The commercial plays on the stereotype that trans women are somehow misleading, ugly, and the last comment “a work in progress” is offensive.”
I have several problems with this:
First and foremost, this is not a new ad. The YouTube video dates back to 2006. If this is such an issue, I’m wondering why it wasn’t addressed when it was actually airing? It’s far too late to pull the ad now, since it’s not even running anymore.
Second, this is about software, and the ad is based on one of the oldest comedy sketches in the book. When I view the ad, I don’t see the man in the dress at the end being transgender. I don’t even see him being a cross-dresser. I see him as a man in a wig and a dress. The primary reason I do not view this as offensive is because the man in the ad is not just any woman: he’s supposed to be Gisele, and Gisele is already onscreen. He is not transitioning; he is the embodiment of poor software. It could just be my perspective, but when I think of the transgender folks I know, I don’t see them being portrayed in the ad.
Third, a ‘work in progress’ is a common phrase used to describe creative work. In the ad, I believe that phrase is used to refer to the movie itself. The thing about advertising is that we have to step outside our own world and into that of the one in the ad. Meaning: the models are movies, and therefore it is the movie that is the work in progress.
Finally, Apple is pretty progressive when it comes to GLBT rights. Turn back time a year and you might come across this quote:
Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights–including the right to marry–should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
I could be wrong about all of this, of course, and I’m certainly open to that idea. But I’m a big fan of thinking critically before jumping to activist conclusions. Any and all comments on this are most welcome. Commence discussion.
Just so we’re clear, here’s what the question will read for Maine voters, according to Ballotpedia: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”
Now watch this video:
See the disconnect? Nowhere in the law is education mentioned. Which means that–gasp–the “fine” folks in the video are lying. Lying! And, it seems it is they who want to educate indoctrinate their own children into believing that there’s no such thing as gay people. Or there won’t be, so long as they can’t get married. Heaven forbid us scary gay people be able to file joint taxes, have hospital visitation rights, receive spousal benefits (like insurance, whoah), not have to have powers of attorney to make decisions on behalf of our loved ones, and gosh I don’t know, make a commitment of love to each other? Newsflash to anyone actually considering voting to deny gay people their rights: your precious children will learn about gay people sooner or later, and whether or not you like it, we’re visible, we’re proud, and we’re contributing to society and there’s nothing, I repeat nothing, you can do about that.
(h/t to Jeremy at Good-As-You for the video. Do go visit him, he’s got an excellent breakdown of the video.)
Oh, Maggie, look at you! Apparently, you’ve discovered, per my advice, that there are colors out there besides red! You know what this means, sweetheart? It means that you’ve been bitten by the gay bug of better taste. The change is slow, to be sure: I see that you’re still wearing a very butch style shirt and you’re still only combining it with black, but baby steps! Before you know it, you might actually be getting a girly haircut and wearing a dress soon!
The last time I checked, a well-crafted poll is supposed to consist of one question followed by a few options representing a variety of answers that were not all of them the same. Or at least, not all of them obviously biased to be answers you want to hear anyway. I mean, if you write a poll and only provide options to respond that you feel are all correct, you shouldn’t be writing a “what is” question, but rather a “which is the number reason for” question. As long as you’re being biased and all.
Enter OneNewsNow, the delightful right-wing organization who hates gay people because we throw much better parties, with this little ‘poll’:
Let’s do a little analysis, shall we?
Question: What is represented by the Obama administration’s move to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
Option 1: Disdain for one-man, one-woman marriage.
For someone who is happily married to someone of the opposite sex, I don’t think President Obama disdains such marriage. Try again.
White House is in the pocket of homosexual activists.
Given our currently level of frustration with President Obama’s failure to take a bold stance to support our rights, I doubt it. Try again.
Total disconnect with traditional American values.
We live in the future, assholes, get with the program. Or didn’t you remember that “traditional American values” used to consist of not allowing women to work, vote, or own property and where owning another human being used to be acceptable? There’s this little thing called human rights, and that’s what we’re fighting for, in our own land and across the world.
It’s been with some disappointment that I’ve watched gay groups arguing over whether to go back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 to repeal Proposition 8. What bothers me about this is that this has become a political game of cat and mouse, and I have come to believe that the only appropriate time to act towards equality is now. I don’t want to be a “social issue” anymore, but as long as there are those out there actively fighting to take my rights away, I will fight right back.
However, the lesson gay organizations need to learn is that we have no business arguing amongst ourselves, especially when others are gleefully watching on the sidelines. This from Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link:
As Equality California announced its plan to pursue a 2012 effort to repeal the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, other gay-activist groups have set their sites on the mid-term election in 2010.
Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, said the split is good news for defenders of marriage.
In the grand scheme of things, it isn’t good news for them, as we are, at least, all organizing for one common goal. We are fighting for the right to live openly, and to openly share our love with others. And we will win.
I used to think that I enjoyed modern architecture and style. And sure, that’s still true, to some degree. But I can’t, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to live in a place like this. I could never be comfortable living in a house like this. There’s just too many right angles, and I would feel like I was trapped in a museum or something, afraid to actually touch or use any of my furniture. Sure, there’s interesting angles and all, but the fact remains that it just doesn’t scream “comfort.”
Having had the opportunity to meet Lt. Dan Choi at the Los Angeles Proposition 8 protest at the end of May, I’m all the more saddened to learn that he has fallen victim to the idiotic policy “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” I admire this man so much, and am in full support of his effort to keep his job. Joe.My.God. brought my attention to this interview with him on MSNBC:
Thanks to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military is now even less equipped to operate, both in general and regarding its Arabic language specialists. Brilliant strategy, *cough cough*.
The Stonewall Riots started in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969. Riots that brought to light a new resistance to police brutality against gay people. Riots that sparked a movement to bring freedom and justice to a small but vibrant community so that subsequent generations of gay people would find a better, safer, more honest and decent place for ourselves to live. Forty years later and we’re still trucking, and not only are we not going away, we’re going to keep moving forward.
Be sure to check out this fantastic post from Joe.My.God. and give a salute to the folks who started us down the road we’re on.
It’s been way too long since I’ve done a Fashionmista Friday post, and I was reminded of this by a reader who emailed me the following:
Phil,
You have been very remiss on the latest in fashion footware. I am including the latest for your edification.
These heels were originally designed by Karl Lagerfeld for Chanel and come in all kinds of different styles and colors, but the one pictured here is a knock-off manufactured by Shiekh and sold for $49.97, a pretty huge difference compared to the Lagerfeld shoe, which is rumored to be about $2,000 for one pair. Since the Chanel site is incredibly unhelpful for searching items, here’s Boing Boing’s post about the Chanel shoes. Aside from their various runway showcases, the Chanel gun pumps were also made popular by Madonna, though for the life of me I couldn’t find a full-size picture of her sporting them.
Now then, enough with the backstory. These are the sorts of shoes that belong only as concept shoes for bad James Bond movies (because, let’s face it, James Bond hasn’t been good since Sean Connery). For one thing, the whole concept just screams “I’m begging for attention and since I have no taste anyway, I may as well wear these ugly-ass pumps.” And while sure, they’d make for great conversation pieces at parties, I’m also sure that the conversations would go something like “OH MY GOD did you see what that chick’s shoes? UGH.” and straight men everywhere would suddenly notice the shoes and be like, “WHOAH, I’m not even going to chance it.”
But if you’re clever and also a fan of Dwight from The Office, you could always make an ironic t-shirt that has this shoe printed on it and says Do you have your tickets to the GUN SHOE?
File this under “things that should not be.” Brooklynites are arguing over who has the right to be memorialized at a new Holocaust Memorial of stones.
A plan to memorialize gay male victims of Nazism amid a collection of memorial stones for Holocaust victims in a quiet half-acre patch of Brooklyn has provoked an outcry.
New York State Assembly Member Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat whose many Orthodox constituents include numerous Holocaust survivors, has decried the planned addition as a distortion of the Holocaust’s meaning with regard to Jews.
“It’s easy to say, let’s include everybody, let’s be universal, diversity is great,” he said. But he added, “It just isn’t fair. It diminishes and really dilutes what the Holocaust is.”
Wait, it’s easy to say ‘Let’s include everybody, let’s be universal, diversity is great’? With all due respect, Mr. Hikind, you’re completely off base. The singular goal of the Holocaust was not only to annihilate the Jewish people, but rather all people who were deemed “unworthy” of the so-called perfect race. It was eugenics at its most insane. The point of the Holocaust was to eliminate diversity, in all its forms. Make no mistake, I am more than aware of the ill-will bestowed upon the Jewish people, and I am well aware of how Hitler chose to point the finger of blame at the Jewish community.
But the only one diluting what the Holocaust really is, Mr. Hikind, is you, and I speak this right here, right now, as both a gay man and a Jewish one. The Holocaust had many victims of not only diverse backgrounds, but multiply diverse backgrounds. Take a moment and read a little bit about the historyofgays in the Holocaust and the silence that ensued for so long after the war ended. After the war ended and the world tried to move on, homosexuality remained illegal throughout Germany, and Paragraph 175 (the law on the books criminalizing homosexuality) remained in effect until 1968. A formal apology was not issued to the gay community by the German government until 2002.
The experience of gay people in the Holocaust has been largely ignored by history, which is all the more reason it needs to be memorialized as much as possible, even and especially alongside tributes to the many victims of the Holocaust. Our Holocaust memorials need to speak to everything the Holocaust stood for: we need to unite and embrace our diversity, our shared experiences, and most of all, we need to remember the atrocities in all their forms so that they may never, ever happen again.
(Please note that there is considerably more to the article I linked and quoted, and reading it in its entirety is definitely worthwhile. I chose to respond only to a very small aspect of the article, so click here to continue reading.)
September 29, 2009 
Posted in gaymentary 
Comments Off 
But the only one diluting what the Holocaust really is, Mr. Hikind, is you, and I speak this right here, right now, as both a gay man and a Jewish one. The Holocaust had many victims of not only diverse backgrounds, but multiply diverse backgrounds. Take a moment and 
