Why Does It Matter?

I had a friend once whom everyone thought was gay. I think it had to do with the fact that he was very metrosexual. He was very well dressed all of the time. He loved his Louis Vuitton bag, and his Abercrombie and Fitch apparel. He even had a more feminine way of talking. For those reasons, I had people coming up to me all the time asking if he was gay, hoping that I would know, since we were close and hung out often. To be honest, I too at the beginning of our friendship had wondered about his sexuality, but I thought more about how I enjoyed spending time with him, and how that was more important. Because of that, I eventually stopped wondering about his sexuality, because it didn't matter.

I had someone I could talk about movies with, and sit next to in class. I had someone that I could laugh with and have inside jokes with regarding the Space Needle story we created in English. He was one of my best friends and I accepted him as he was. Because of this I also noticed how I also become very protective of him. Anytime that someone would say something to me, or ask me if he was gay, I would defensively state "No!"

He would date girls. He dated one of my friends in middle school. He would from time to time talk about his future, getting married (to a woman) and becoming a doctor. However, none of that mattered to the kids in Carson City, Nevada.

It was a small enough town, that most of the kids you went to middle school and high school with, were also the same kids you went to elementary school with. It was these same kids that he had grown up with who also sent him to the school counselor crying because something that they had said or done to him regarding his sexuality.

One day during lunch in Senator Square, my friend and I were having a conversation and laughing when this one kid came up to him, grabbed his butt, then put his hand on my friends face and said, "Hey baby, how much for a blow?" The kid then turned and walked away towards his friends who were keeled over with laughter. He was greeted with high fives. It took everything in my friends power to not cry in front of them. As we walked to the counselors office together he had to keep wiping away his tears. I went with him numerous times to the counselor, and they would just advise that next time that it happens to let them know, and that they could hold a counselor meeting with the people involved in the mistreatment. They then would say if that did not help then the next thing that they would do is put a restraining order on the person/people.

He was very sensitive about his sexuality, and even I had to watch what I said to him. I had heard on the radio once that the Volkswagen Jetta was the most popular car to be bought by Gay men. I thought that it was interesting that a car company knows that, and I wondered if they were just stereotyping or if they actually did a poll to obtain the information. Anyways, one day we were talking about cars that we wanted to have or would like to have, and he had said, "I want a Volkswagen Jetta." Of course I was not thinking about how this would affect him, it was a total "open mouth, insert foot moment," and I told him of the study I had heard about the Jetta being a popular car amongst Gay men. Maybe it was because I didn't think of him in regards to his sexuality, so I was not thinking abut hurting his feelings. But he instantly asked me "what are you trying to say?" I had to tell him that I did not mean it in the context he was taking it. However, that did not help, and he did not talk to me for three days. I even had to talk to his mom who called me and asked me what had happened. We got over it, and we were back to the way we were before the incident.

Of course, as High School goes, some people fall apart due to other interests. He fell into the partying crowd and people, where as I stayed more involved in my learning. We continued to have classes together, and we still talked, but I didn't have the same outside of school interests as he did. Just because we were not hanging out all of the time, does not mean that I still did not hear people comment on his sexuality. They would make derogatory comments behind his back, and say things about how he just needs to come out of the closet. It got really bad when he was at a party that was being thrown by a kid in our school who was popular as well as very vocal about his sexuality towards the same sex. The monday after the party, everyone kept talking about how my friend and this other kid were seen talking a lot at the party, and that instantly made people assume that for sure my friend was Gay, and that he just needs to admit it.

It is sad, because his sexuality followed him until we graduated. I am sure that it still does, and I am sure that he still deals with issues regarding his sexual preference. The sad thing is is that these things still happen, and to an even worse extent that my friend had to deal with. In one of the readings "Lesbian Sues School District Over Harassment," by Judy Peet, it talked about how Nancy Wadington was pushed down the stairs and had people urinate on her bag. She dealt with torment on a daily basis. Another kid had been "slapped, punched and taunted by classmates who thought he was gay." "Thought" is the key word there. It makes me so angry that there has to be hate crimes regarding someone's homosexuality. When I see movies like Boys Don't Cry, Brokeback Mountain, and The Laramie Project, it just upsets me that hate crimes have to be a unresolved issue, and in some states even tolerated. What is people's fascination with knowing if someone is Gay or a Lesbian? No one cares if they are heterosexual, so why does it matter if they homosexual? After "Juno" came out Ellen Page was and is constantly nailed in the press over her sexuality. She even poked fun of it on SNL doing a skit where she goes to a Melissa Etheridge concert with her boyfriend Andy Samberg, and she feels awakened now with "sisterfire." She even says "Why does everything have to have a frickin' label? Why can't I just hug a woman with my legs in friendship?" She even did a magazine shoot with Drew Barrymore, and in one of the pictures they are kissing. This again brought many people to question the sexuality of both actresses and Ellen's again. Also just recently, in Hollywood, Jeremy Renner, who was nominated for an Oscar for his role in "The Hurt Locker," had his sexuality questioned when the day after the Oscars, his old acting coach claims that Jeremy is gay.


This brings me to my question, why does it matter? Does it take away from either of their acting abilities? Why does it matter what someone's sexual desires are? No one is normal. People are all different, even "heterosexuals" have weird and odd fetishes that can take them out of the normal category, so why does it matter to call someone out on their homosexuality? Why do hate crimes have to happen and be tolerated? Until something is done, there are going to be other actors questioned, and other kids in school who will be victims of hate crimes and torment like Nancy and my friend. I think that everyone should read the "Heterosexual Questionnaire," adapted from ©1972, Martin Rochlin, Ph.D. Because when I read it, it put me into the shoes of someone who is constantly questioned about something that should not matter to anyone but myself and the person I am involved with. It made me feel like I was not in the "normal" category, which I think everyone needs to feel once, especially heterosexual, because it might make some people think differently. Either way, heterosexual or homosexual it is all normal to me, so it should not matter.

IT KILLS

Images courtesy of Google Images
"Lesbian Sues School District," by Judy Peet

How Shall We Communicate?

I read the reading/movie review for this week by Roger Ebert for the movie "Children of a Lesser God," before I sat down and watched the movie. Since I read the review first, I made it apparent to pay attention to the things that Ebert mentioned in the review, to see if I too noticed what he was talking about and how I felt about it.

I do have to agree with Roger Ebert on this one, it would have been nice if part of the movie was put into the perspective of the character Sarah (Marlee Matlin). There were only two little scenes in the whole movie that went without actual actor's making the sound, and there was very music being played, which was hardly audible, and those two scenes were when Sarah was swimming naked. I do have to say that this did make me a little aggravated, and I did have to role my eyes, because I felt that the only two scenes where they actually (sort of) put the audience in her inaudible world is when she is swimming around naked in a very sensual way. Why not the scene when she is watching James' (William Hurt) class perform at the school talent show? I felt that I would have been able to relate better, and understand her point of view better in that scene if it did in fact alternate from sound to no sound. I felt that this would have truly helped the audience, or at least myself, sympathize with Sarah more in the scene. Even perhaps the scene when she is at the poker table with everyone. I felt that that would have been a good scene as well, since she looked confused about what was going on. James also felt so inclined to take credit for her being who she is as a person. James did not teach her how to play poker, he even admits it; yet, when Dr. Franklin (Philip Bosco) congratulates him on the fine job he is doing with Sarah, which to me is nothing because he is not teaching her anything, he takes the credit and says thank you. But this scene also lead me to believe that she could to some degree understand a little bit of lip reading, hence the confused, unsure look on her face. At least that is the impression that I got.


I also have to add that because those are the only two scenes in the whole movie that are without major sound, it really displays Sarah as a physical object. Really? The only way they could get the audience to relate to her character and experience her silent world was to show her swimming nude? To experience being deaf I guess we all just have to swim around naked. A ha! In fact, I can recall that there is indeed a scene after Sarah leaves James, where he is emerged in the water, naked. Who knows maybe he is half-naked. You really can't tell because they did not objectify James as a sex object like they did with Sarah. So he is in the water trying to emerge himself in her world of silence: he is trying to see what it is like being deaf. Like I said, swimming in water naked is key to knowing what being deaf is like!


In Roger Ebert's review he states that "the true subject of this movie... is communication between two people who speak differently." He outlined well in the review how the character of James is really set on trying to get Sarah to learn how to pronounce words/speak as well as read lips. Why? Well, to make speaking to Sarah more convenient for him obviously. This really bothered me in the movie the way he just assumed she could read lips. The part that bothered me the most was when she got up to get more tea or coffee, and he asked her to get him some more as well, but realized that she could not hear him. He seemed almost annoyed, which was what bothered me. I understand that being in any sort of relationship, whether it is with friends, family, partner, etc.. it is all about communication, so I can see why maybe the annoyance on his part. He wants to feel special too, and have her meet him half way. However, he needed to realize that he has the ability to be able to communicate with her in any way he chooses. She does not have that luxury. I feel as if he wants her to be more "normal" in getting her talk and read lips. If she were blind would he force her to try and see? If she were in a wheelchair and unable to walk would he try and convince her that she may be able to walk if she just try hard enough? I don't think so. So why should he force her to try and communicate in a convenient way for him?


All this communication talk leads me to my last point of the movie, and that is sexual communication. Besides the fact that there was a lot of sexuality in the movie, I felt that it was put in there because these two were both too stubborn to really take the time to communicate in any other way. During one scene, they start to get into a fight, and instead of working it out and communicating audibly/visually, they battled it out on the floor communicating sexually. Which the audience can see that it did nothing to solve their problem. I just truly felt that every scene had to lead to, talk about, and show sex in some way. He hardly even knows her, and they start talking about her sex life. I believe they even get into a little argument about it. Which also helps me prove my point that sex is the main issue for both of them. Honestly, you are trying really hard to get to know someone and you really can only bring up and talk about their sex life? That's a good relationship with strong communication.

I also felt that he was more supportive and understanding of his students then he was of Sarah. That is one positive thing about this movie though, is his support and acceptance of his students. I just wish he was more like that with Sarah, and showed his communication with her in a non-sexual way. To sum it up, I thought that the movie was mediocre. I was hoping that it was a more positive movie for people with hearing impairments, and a more positive movie for people to see about people who have hearing impairments. If they did put the audience in her silent world and cut out some of the sound in the movie, it would have probably have been more effective. I also didn't like how, as Ebert puts it, Sarah is a "stubborn object," which I agree with, because instead of making the audience reach out to Sarah and understand her, her stubbornness makes the audience side with James. I mean really lady, how hard is it for you to learn to read lips?


It really just shows how he is not accepting of her disability, which can make the audience feel the same way. It teaches people that people who are deaf should be able to learn how to communicate with the "TAB", instead of the other way around. I also feel that if the roles were reversed and James' character were deaf, Sarah would bend over backwards to communicate with James through signing. She would not have ever tried to force him to speak or read lips. She may have encouraged him, but once he showed that he only wanted to sign, she would have accepted it.


Like I said, the movie was mediocre, and not as positive as I would have hoped. I feel like the movie, "The Family Stone," did a better job showing how a family, and people in relationships with deaf people learn to communicate with them in a loving, positive, accepting way that makes the audience see that it is not that hard or challenging/aggravating to truly communicate by signing.

All Images Courtesy of Google Images
Movie Clip Courtesy of YouTube

Are Unions really Valuable?

While watching the film/documentary "Harlan County U.S.A.," Directed by Barbara Kopple, it really got me thinking if unions are really valuable, especially when dealing with big business corporations. For starters, whenever anyone thinks of unions, i.e. someone who is not in a union and or someone who has never been in one, they can usually get the assumption that they are for the poor, minimum wage, working class people in the country. It is easy to see, especially when workers go on strike. The workers are seen as radical, annoying, whiny or someone who complains all the time, and people who are asking for to much. After all of the strikes that happen, with the picket lines, and publicity the workers are trying to get out there, in the end does it really do anything? From what I saw in the film, it was made pretty clear that no matter what workers ask for, the big business never has to give up much, if at all very little, and the workers fighting give up pretty much everything for a paid day off on your birthday and a $0.25 raise.


The problem is that big corporations have all the power. It disgusts me to think that those hard working miners in the film work so hard everyday, and they obtain health problems, and for what? To keep the CEO of Duke Power Co., and all the other men who get to wear suits and ties to work living comfortably. It allows the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer. I think I am getting ahead of my self here, and that I should start from the beginning of the film, to help solidify my points and get back on topic.



At the very beginning, you as the viewer, are put into the perspective of a miner. You show up at work in the morning, hop on the conveyor belt, and get whisked away into the deep, dark earth. I personally could never send myself head first down into the earth, in such a tight passage. They have to lay so low to the ground because if they lifted their heads any higher, they would hit the ceiling of rocky earth above them, and hurt themselves. They are then shown working in an area so dark, that even their lights on their helmets produce very little light that they are pretty much pointless to use. You see them re-stabilizing the ground above them so it doesn't collapse on them, and blowing up more areas of the ground to search for more coal to keep the owner of the company richer. At the end of their shifts they come out of the mine looking as black as the darkness they work in. They are covered in coal dust. Among working in a setting like this, they are also slowly acquiring major respiratory problems that will effect them later on: the most common is Black Lung, which you can only get by breathing in coal dust, and it can kill you.


So would the CEO or owner of Duke Power work a day in the mine with its workers? Probably not. However, if they did, or if they too were miners before becoming the person in charge of the company, I am sure that there would be no need for a union. The miners would be making (at least in the 70's when this was filmed) $10 an hour if not more. They would be working in safer conditions, as well as having the right equipment provided for them to prevent respiratory diseases later on. They would have all major holidays off, and paid for. They would have full benefits for themselves and their families, and lastly they would not be living in shacks that lack running water, and that could topple over at any minute. They probably also would not be living in the upgraded trailer. They would probably be living in really modest homes that have heat and running hot water. It is the 70's after all, I mean really, who wants to live in a barn? But what CEO or wants that? That would lower his bank account 20% (this figure I am just assuming makes the most sense to what is stated above), and all the men in suits and ties would have to have pay cuts.

This is where the unions step in and why they were created. All the miners that are union workers in the film, identify themselves as UMWA, United Mine Workers of America. The union employs people who can be the spokesperson for the miners, and they then go in and negotiate contracts based on what the miners want to do their job happily. If all of them feel they are underpaid, work in poor, unsafe conditions, or want specific benefits, they go to the union, and it is the unions job to speak up for the miners, especially since they are receiving part of their pay from each pay check. Since all big corporations hate unions, because they are there to take more of their money to give to the workers, they will fight their hardest to not give anything if little at all to the workers. When the contract is being negotiated, and not running as smoothly as expected, workers are encouraged to strike on the picket line. This helps draw in publicity in hopes of compromising a deal with the corporations. Here it seems as if unions really are valuable. They seem to have the miners best interests at heart.


While strikes are occurring, the company is losing money, because their business is not being run as productively as before. This helps create a speedier contract compromise. However, in the case of the Harlan County Miners in the movie, that was not the case. All of the miners, including wives who stood proudly behind their husbands, and sisters, and anyone else who was for the miners went on strike for 13 months. They were told by the union representatives to stand on the picket line and defend your rights, and they continually did so, even after they were being shot at and beaten by "gun thugs." They were seen as radicals, and were constantly pushed around by the law for trying to stop "scabs" going to work in the mines while striking. It is easy to see that their intentions are harmless. They just want to educate people on their situation. But no one really seemed to care especially the cops. It took 13 months for a contract to finally be negotiated, but that was only because Lawrence Jones had to be shot and killed to put an end to the on-going strikes. At that point in the film is when I started wondering if the union was really doing anything to really protect the miners it housed a voice for, and if they really were valuable? Especially when their cost of living goes up 7%, their wages go up 4%, and the production of coal, which they all work to produce, goes up 170%.


It is a debatable topic. I am still going back and forth in deciding. I think that in the case of the movie, their union did the best that they could. I think that all unions do the best that they can. Unfortunately, because they have to fight with big corporations who are trying to save all the money they can (for themselves), by hiring workers at a low pay, giving them little benefits, and working them in poor conditions for as long as they can. I wish that unions were more public with the treatment of all workers working for them, instead of only when strikes occur. If they educated the public more with how workers are treated inside companies, maybe there would be more sympathy for all the hard workers of the world. If this happened maybe miners would finally get the respect and treatment they deserve.

All pictures courtesy of Google Images