Big surprise, you elect a liberal president, you get liberal cabinet secretaries who in turn appoint liberal people to their departments. I can’t say I was surprised that Education Secretary Arne Duncan appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and co-chair of LGB fundraising for Barack Obama to be the assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education.
That said, I am concerned about this appointment. While in recent years I have warmed to the reasonable objectives of GLSEN which include violence prevention, I am not convinced that Mr. Jennings is the guy for this position. As a backdrop for my concerns about his views, readers should read the 2005 paper, Remembering Brewster.
In this paper, I note that Jennings told two different stories about an encounter with a student, Brewster, at Concord Academy in Massachusetts. In 2004, Mr. Jennings was accused by then chair of the NEA Republican Educators Caucus, Diane Lenning, of failing to report a potential abuse situation involving Brewster. At the time, Mr. Jennings denied the allegation and demanded via detailed letter from his lawyer that Mrs. Lenning retract the accusations. On point, the letter read:
Nowhere in the book does Mr. Jennings state he understood that the student was being abused or victimized, or that he suffered injury from any abuse, or indeed that the student was even having sex.
She never retracted and he never sued.
Later, I was given a tape of a 2000 lecture by Mr. Jennings discussing Brewster. He was speaking to a GLSEN rally in Iowa. In that lecture, he indicated that Brewster was involved in sexual behavior of some kind. After being informed that Brewster was not in class, Jennings went to find him in his room. Here is the relevant part of the talk (click link for the mp3 – you might have to turn up the volume):
And I said, “Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?” And he said, “Well, I’m tired.” And I said, “Well we all are tired and we all got to school today.” And he said, “Well I was out late last night.” And I said, “What were you doing out late on a school night.” And he said, “Well, I was in Boston…” Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, “What were you doing in Boston on a school night Brewster?” He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, “My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before.” I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.” He said to me something I will never forget, He said “Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway.”
If Jennings did not believe he was sexually active, then why advise him to use a condom? His handling of this incident, subsequence defense and alternate stories about it concern me. I have posted this story twice before on this blog and most commenters gay, straight, conservative or liberal agree that such an incident should be reported. I watched him refuse to answer reporter George Archibald’s question about the incident on the floor of the NEA exhibit hall. I do not think he has ever addressed the discrepancies in the accounts. I emailed GLSEN to ask for a comment in 2005 with no reply.
I may be misunderstood with this post. Let me be clear: the sexual orientation of the teacher and/or the student are not relevant to the need to get the parents, school and possibly the authorities involved in helping a troubled student in the situation Jennings described. Also, I am not disputing that GLSEN has appropriately raised awareness about bullying of GLB students; a problem which needs ongoing attention. However, I do wish the point person for school safety was someone with an unambiguous record on school-parent communication. If Mr. Jennings had said something like – ‘hey, that was a rookie mistake, I should have alerted someone about a depressed 15 year old boy being 45 minutes away from his boarding school without permission having sex, perhaps with an adult,’ then I would not have quite the same reaction. Instead, he denied what he earlier acknowledged and threatened to sue.
UPDATE: Some have asked me to verify Jennings position as fund raiser for Obama. Here is a video with Jennings and co-chair Joan Garry introducing Bill Clinton at an Obama fundraiser.
UPDATED POST:
Jennings refers to Brewster as Robertson in his 2006 memoir. In it he acknowledges the young man was in need of safe sex advice.
If you son thinks there is only one thing that makes him different from heterosexuals and that one thing is “in the bedroom” and “nobody’s business”, then he is both selfish and a fool.
Selfish because until about six years ago, what he does “in the bedroom” was illegal in 12 states and until 1961 illegal in all of them. It was due to those “flamers” and their determined and committed efforts to bring about decency, equality, and justice that he now has the right to do what he likes “in the bedroom”.
And a fool because he is woefully ignorant of the thousands of laws and rules and ordinances that differentiate him from his heterosexual neighbor. Your son can’t serve in the military, adopt in Florida, marry in Alabama, visit his life partner in the hospital in Utah, get social security spousal benefits, be exempt from testimony should his partner commit a crime, and on and on. In fact, if his home is in his partner’s name and something should happen to him, your son could be evicted onto the street by people he’s never met who despise him and his partner – without recourse.
That he has decided that he doesn’t “need” equality is, of course, up to him. There were plenty of Good Negros who didn’t want to rock the boat in the 50s and 60s. There were plenty of women who didn’t want the vote. There were plenty of Jews who accepted housing division policies with “can’t sell to Jews” stipulations because they didn’t “need” to live in Hancock Park. And there are more than a few gay people like your son who will agree to second class citizenship and reduced rights and inferior treatment because they have been convinced that it’s good enough.
It’s very very sad.
Out of curiosity – why is Mother of a Gay Son called to a higher standard than others on this blog who engage in namecalling and are not asked to observe the same guidelines you are requiring of her?
Mary
That is an unfair accusation. Jay is not attacking the son for “trying to fit in”.
He’s criticizing the attitude of acquiescence, the willingness to accept inequality, and especially the permission that such an attitude gives to those who oppress gay people.
Those, like the Mother here, feel justified in treating gay people unfairly. After all, good gays, like her son, don’t want to have civil equality. And good gays, like her son, dislike flamers so she can too. And good gays, like her son, don’t “need” marriage, or military service, or adoption, or basic decency, so she feels completely justified in her biases and animus.
And, of course, “good gays, like her son”, is defined as those who agree that they are inferior and unworthy and deserving of her contempt. Then she can love them.
It isn’t because they “fit in” that we are upset. For that matter, I “fit in”.
It is their complicity in their own oppression that we “attack”
That assumes a lot that you can’t know about this man. One man’s “oppression” may be another’s contentment with his life.
Gee, Timothy, this sure makes me travel back to the initial reaction of the gay community after “After the Ball” was published in 1989. They didn’t want to be told to fit in. They wanted to stand out. Maybe this guy read the book.
Oh my goodness. Timothy you just proved what I was saying. Same thing about blacks back in the day. If a brother or sister was passing they were looked down on for oppressing their own kind. Now we hear it from a gay man? I think I was curtailed from expanding on this in another post about gay being in every crevice of a person’s life and a gay person agruing that that was not so. Just goes to show you that people are on both sides of the argument even though they are on the same sides of the yard. Amazing.
Well, I’m a geek and always will be!
Really, “Mother of…” I’m not bitter at all. I just refuse to allow my gay brothers and sisters be attcked by small-minded bumpkins. Flamboyant people of all sexual orientations are frequently celebrated in our society: In the entertainment industry (Liberace, Prince, Madonna, Marilyn Monroe…); in professional athletics (John McEnroe, Dennis Rodman, “Broadway” Joe Namath, Muhammad Ali, Wrestlers…); in business (Donald Trump, Richard Branson); in the Literary World (Paul Rudnick, Jay McInerney, Tama Janowicz, Eric Van Lustbader; Art (Warhol, Haring, Karen Finley…); and Fashion (Almost everyone), the list goes on and on. The people I have listed are undeniably flamboyant in a host of ways and they come from a range of sexual orientations. But you only single out flamboyant gay people (and, of course, goth kids who do no one any harm).
I was hardly arguing your point. I was stating that even though I don’t dress up nor am I particularly effeminate; I don’t denigrate people who do/are, like you seem to have taught your son too. That your son has convinced himself that the only difference between gay people and straight people is sexual practice is, well, sad. He clearly sees no worth in gay people who are not just like him (ah, the dear lessons learnt at mummy’s knee) and he therefore has only the tiniest sliver of an understanding of the richness and fullness of the gay community at large.
Also, to correct you, I don’t WANT Gay people to be different than your son, I accept that many gay people are like your son (at least on the outside, though I am sure many don’t have the traumatic past of a mother like you making them hate other gay people) and many gay people are outrageously flamboyant and that most are somewhere in between. I don’t demand that people change their appearance to conform to my narrow, bigoted notions of acceptable behavior. But you do.
See, I am disgusted by you (one single, bigoted, child-damaging harridan.) You are disgusted by millions of Gay people whose onle “crime” is flamboyance. And you call me hateful? Honey, your hate spans the globe. Sad, really.
Thanks, Timothy for your understanding of my point.
And, Deborah:
Did you really just say that? You sound like one of those revisionist historians of the Antebellum South who claim that most of the enslaved Black people were perfectly content.
And Mary, the difference is that when Gays “attack” closet cases or internally homophobic Gays, or bigoted straight people for their attitudes toward Gay rights, we just use words. When we are attacked, fists and weapons are frequently employed, as well as legislation to destroy the lives of Gay people.
But that’s modern conservatism. They foment violence and hijack the government to oppress people, then whine about how picked-on they are when someone simply speaks up and calls them out on their bigotry. I believe that the French word is “Pathetique!”
Oh and “Mother…”
If you interpreted,
as my spitting on you, then you are admitting that you are that type of person. I think you’re sad and bitter.
Also, my mother is dead; but when she was alive she taught me the value of respecting all different kinds of people. She taught me that God created EVERYONE in his image and that it is blasphemy to denigrate any group of His children. She taught me that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. And she taught me that you can learn something from anyone and everyone. As a Black Woman in the 50s and 60s, she had participated on the front lines of the civil rights movement and knew something about discrimination; so when she had her son (me) she taught him that discriminating against ANYONE who wasn’t doing anything to harm someone else is wrong. Those are true American Values. It is sad that all the Hatey McHaterson’s out there didn’t learn those sorts of lessons from their parents.
Jay Walker said to ‘Mother’:
This is most interesting. Whenever we’ve tried to address other differences…or used terms like ‘gay lifestyle’…we’ve been shot down with ‘we’re just like you except for who we go to bed with’. Maybe you can help us get to the bottom of that one. In what ways, outside of sexual practice, are gay people different?
Debbie
I only am going on what Mother has to say. Perhaps he isn’t acquiescent in his own oppression. Perhaps he doesn’t exist.
You certainly are in love with your own delusions about that particular book. And your own delusions about the gay community. “They” didn’t want to be told to fit in? They?
All in your own imagination, Debbie.
Read it again, Mary.
There’s a difference between “fitting in” and acquiescing to owns own oppression. Think about it.
I think most gays want the choice — Stand out? Be proud? Just as straights can stand out and be publically proud of being straight? Yes.
Fit in? Be able to blend in? Be part of the culture, of the church? Have the same rights and freedoms? Yes. It isn’t “either/or”.
Eddy,
OH. COME. ON.
I don’t believe that. I don’t think anyone gay on this site has told you that “we’re just like you except for who we go to bed with.
First off, that’s just tacky. And no gay person here defines their orientation by “who we go to bed with”. What a nasty slur.
Are we intrinsically different? Likely not. The direction of our attractions probably give neither benefit or detriment to our abilities to contribute to the world around us.
But we most definitely are different in the way that laws currently discriminate against us. And it is this difference that Mother’s Son is embracing.
If we are to believe Mother, her son accepts and even champions discrimination against him. How very very sad.
Eddy,
Yeah I just caught it.
Was that a deliberate and intentional slur or just an accidental diminishing of same-sex attraction to “behavior”
Really really classy
I agree. I believe that my gayness is much more than who I go to bed with. It has to do with who I am attracted to romantically and spiritually. It has to do with a deep appreciation of maleness — the experience of living in the world as a man who loves men.
It even seems to play a part in my insterests, tastes, impressions, outlook and hobbies — in very positive way. I am not straight, but I would think that straight guys do experience the world differently than I do — in many subtle and no-so-subtle ways.
It’s not my identity or a particular lifestyle. It is not who I am. But I do live in a male body and am SSA. That must be different than what a straight male would experience.
Well, I am confused but please don’t take this thread down this road very far. We had a thread where I supported Michael mildly when he made what I thought was the case that gays and straights were not terribly different.
Without going back and getting quotes from other threads, can we just stick to the relevance that issue has to the Jennings thread?
I do not think we are “different” (any less in the image of God) but our experience must be “different” in some ways. I most ways, my brother are are are much alike and yet as as different as our fingerprints. I think we need to be careful not to equate “different” with “wrong” or “less valuable”.
Now, I will stick to the thread.
It’s really quite easy to understand when folks aren’t trying to get in slurs or make points:
1. Gays and straights are not terribly different.
2. Gay folk are sexually, romantically, affectionately, and spiritually attracted to persons of their own sex in ways identically to how straight people are attracted to persons of the opposite sex.
3. This can have culture and experience differences in the same way that someone raised in a Latino family or living in an Asian community may have differences.
4. Government, legislation, society, and culture does treat gay and straight people differently. Were such differences applied to some other community (say Armenians), we would all be in agreement that they were oppressive.
Some folks – including some here – believe that these differences in law are reasonable and necessary for the good of society. However, I think that all of us can agree that they are experienced by those subjected to the differences as being oppressive. Gay people respond to oppression differently, but such oppression is most definitely a difference and it does cause differences in perspective.
And those of us who have and do experience such oppression are likely to view the attack (and it is an attack) on Kevin Jennings from that perspective.
We see demands that “he should have done this or that” and we see absolutely no acknowledgment from, say, the Washington Post, that he could have been arrested for doing what they insist he should have done. Yes, in Massachusett 21 years ago, Kevin Jennings was defined as a criminal just for being gay.
We hear indignant denunciations of “Brewster’s” behavior and Jennings’ response but we don’t see a comparable concern for Brewster’s feelings of worthlessness.
Has anyone here (other than us gay folk) expressed even once any concern about Brewster’s feelings that his life wasn’t worth saving? Anyone?
It almost seems to me that some may think that Brewster should have felt worthless and that Jennings is to be blamed for (as Peter LaBarbera puts it) using predatory seduction in making him feel OK. I can almost hear some saying, “but it’s not OK” and it isn’t difficult for me to think that some here would rather Brewster become HIV infected or worse as long as he didn’t “accept a gay identity”. Then at least he had some chance of being convicted of his sin and brought to Jesus.
Am I wrong?
These “differences” give us gay folk a different view of this political situation. We look at the ringleaders and, other than Warren, see the usual suspects. It’s blatant. It’s obvious.
Of course they oppose Jennings’ appointment. They opposed the appointment of every gay person that has ever been appointed. In fact, they’ve opposed everything that could possibly be construed to be remotely beneficial to the lives of gay people. We don’t see justified outrage of a unique situation; we see more of the same.
And that is one of the biggest differences between me and many of those here that are up in arms about Jennings. My “differences” have made me aware of just how contemptuous many in the conservative camp are towards ANY gay person.
Oh, my.
I just found out something about Kevin Jennings that would just horrify some folks. They would NEVER want someone like this to have any access to school children.
It appears that Jennings is a Christian and sits on the board of trustees for Union Theological Seminary.
Yikes.
I wonder if he’s going to push a pro-Christian agenda on poor hapless school children. Oh, my. Oh, dear.
I missed a few of the later posts when I was responding earlier.
Timothy and Michael,
I see you both played the ‘outrage card’ against me in your response to my question to Jay Walker…and yet, it was comments by Michael (the ones Warren alluded to) that prompted my question. My question was not presented in a demeaning manner…I cited his observation and how it seemed to go against what I’d heard in response to questions here…and then I asked for his impressions of what the differences were. I do not see any justification for your ‘claws out’ attack. You certainly have no business assuming motives when none are even suggested.
With that aside, Jay’s comments about differences does have some bearing on the future of the conversation. 1) if it’s just an off-handed remark meant to slur ‘Mother’, then it needs to be addressed as such. 2) if it’s true, then we really ought to discuss these differences. If there are common differences recognized universally in the gay community, then it’s reasonable to conclude that these differences will come across in the teachings of GLSEN. 3) the refusal to talk them out with us here comes across as arrogant…what, are we too stupid to grasp them? too bigoted to appreciate them? Is that the attitude we can expect when we question anything proposed or supported by Jennings?
I read the differences Michael cited and went back to Jay’s comment in its context…and somehow I’m sure that Jay is alluding to different differences. So Jay, I’d still appreciate it if you weighed in on what differences you perceive…the ones that ‘Mother’s’ son is either in denial of or out of touch with.
Timothy said:
A big part of my concern about this situation relates to what has been taught to teachers and volunteers at GLSEN over the years. I have not yet found a speech or discussion of this where he indicated to the listeners that suicidal boys engaging risky sexual behavior should be confronted for their own good. I don’t see letting this kind of boy go along without “legal and medical” (to quote Jennings) as being concerned, functionally speaking.
Were people being arrested in MA in relationship to homosexuality in the late 1980s? If this was happening, I could understand better the issues you raise. However, he has acknowledged being out to his administration, to other students and in the most recent book, according to Brewster/Robertson, one would need to be stupid not to know. Two weeks later he came out to the world – he wasn’t concerned about being a criminal when he came out at Concord and started a GSA.
Having said all of that, let me hasten to add again, that I might not have written about this in the first place, if Jennings had acknowledged the complexities, and inadequate response along the way and somewhere said what teachers should do and how intervening in uncomfortable ways can bring resolution.
Ann – If I missed some egregious namecalling, point it out and I will make the same stance…
PS – Timothy, I get you on the usual suspects observation. It grieves me to see that. I will no doubt be misunderstood for writing out my findings and opinions on this topic.
Good grief, Timothy.
Yes!
Could we stick to the facts instead of wild conjecture? This theater of the absurd has about run its course.
Warren,
I think we all (now including Jennings) agree that he did not respond adequately. Interestingly, gay web sites have raised this same point. For example, Queerty’s take was
But I disagree with the idea that Jennings was unconcerned. This seems to contradict the entire reason for him presenting the story to begin with. I think that you are perhaps putting on him a standard that you are not applying to any of his coworkers.
As for folks arrested in MA, the purpose of sodomy laws was never to arrest those who engage in sodomy. If enforced all the courts would be full.
However, they were selectively enforced to keep gay folk in line. Gay folk knew this and, consequently, avoided police. Especially in context of their orientation. To go to a police officer in a sodomy state and say “I’m gay” was an invitation for abuse or arrest.
While I do think that Jennings should have involved mental health professionals or perhaps an attorney, I think he would have been nuts to call the police. I certainly wouldn’t have called them.
Personally, I find Jennings’ statement to be a bit, well, lacking in substance. But it is my impression – and I hope that I am right – that GLSEN and Jennings has participated in the process of establishing protocol for educators to address SSA children that are sexually active. Although I may be mistaken, I believe that has been a large part of his efforts for the past couple of decades.
Do you have a different impression?
Debbie,
Just so I understand you correctly:
Given the choice between
A. – Brewster comes to believe that being gay is OK and accepts his gay identity and thereafter behaves in a way that does not endanger his health. He never again thinks that being gay is not OK.
B – Brewster continues to believe that being gay is not acceptable and engages in destructive behavior and becomes HIV infected. However, Brewster is open to feel conviction for his sin and come to Christ.
you’d pick A.
Eddy,
Perhaps you missed where I discussed the differences. It’s at
If I missed some egregious namecalling, point it out and I will make the same stance…
Dr. Throckmorton/ Warren,
That is not the position I want to take – I was just curious what the criteria was when determining who gets an admonishment and who doesn’t. I think it has been more than obvious that most of us here engage in civility, however, there are some that do not and resort to name calling, etc. They do not receive the same admonishment you gave to the Mother post and I was just wondering why.
Absurd just gets absurder.
Presuming I could be the Fairy Godmother, I’d pick C – Jennings refers Brewster to a counselor and Brewster’s parents love on him. Whether or not he chooses to see himself as gay or engage in risky behavior, having been informed of the risks, then becomes his choice. Any other incidents like the first one would be reported.
Sorry, Timothy, your post from 4:16 only brought up one ‘big difference’…that of responding to oppression. A nice weighted and argumentative slant that still doesn’t seem to go to the differences that Jay went on the attack about.
‘Mothers’ son has a life partner and isn’t closeted yet has areas where he keeps his sexuality to himself. Jay’s attack almost sounded like he was accusing the man of ‘being in the closet’ due to her horribly oppressive views(an unfair portrait, IMHO)…if so, this would be the first time I heard that phrase in reference to someone who was ‘out’ to their family and had a same sex partner.
Debbie–
Excellent response! I couldn’t believe the nerve of Timothy trying to box you in with choose A or B! I constantly marvel at how conservative Christians are accused of thinking in terms of ‘black and white’ yet it’s those who oppose us who demonstrate so often that that’s how they think.
Debbie,
I didn’t think that you were in favor of Option A. He he
Eddy,
Yeah, I know. You weren’t really wanting a discussion of differences, you were just wanting to make a point.
Are we very different or very alike? What difference does it make?
This I’ll repeat
I’ve yet to hear anyone say, “Yes, someone should have made Brewster know that his life was worth saving, that is was OK for him to be gay. Thank God that Jennings cared enough to do so even though no one else was willing to.”
Of course, I don’t really expect it. That would be, in the words of Debbie, absurd just gets absurder.
Timothy,
I’ve thought about it – a lot. You and I look at the same thing and see it differently.
Seems if you say gays are gays some claim they are just like everyone else. Some say that they act gay and should not be looked down on for not acqueiscing (sp) to a different standard than one that is obviously gay.
Michael,
Do you agree with this statement?
“Yes, someone should have made Brewster know that his life was worth saving, that is was OK for him to be gay. Thank God that Jennings cared enough to do so.”
@ Timothy,
Jennings membership on the Board of Union Theological Seminary is fascinating, but not surprising.
It’s great graduates are all in years past: Tillich, Nieber, Bonhoffer and Earle B. Blakeslee (my dad).
Living graduates with an impact are Cone (Black Liberation Theology), which has little to do with being a color-blind faith.
UTS is a philosophical home to nearly every left of center political idea…what would happen if a board member of Dallas Theological Seminary was heading up Bush’s office of Safe Schools?
Thanks Timothy, I thought this school had closed down some time ago, but my father, when he was alive, was very proud of his years spent here.
Mary,
I’m not completely sure what you are saying.
I say that gay people, like straight folks, come in all sizes, shapes, forms and behaviors. And that they should not be looked down upon for being gay.
I think gay people should not acquiesce to their own oppression. In other words, they should never agree with those who would put them down, deny them rights or equality, or insist that they be inferior.
Does that address what you are saying?
Yes, TImothy, wholeheartedly. It reminds me of a young patient I had in 2006 — a devoutly Christian guy who told me he did not want to take his HIV medicine beacuse he was convinced that his illness was God’s punishment for being gay.
I find the playing of the “Well, this- case- is- different- because- it -involved- a -gay- boy -and- a -gay -teacher- at -a- time -when -things -were different for ‘gay folk’ ” argument to be an ineffective one.
For much of history and even today, in this country as well as in others, girls and women who report advances, sexual or physical abuse, or rape by a boyfriend, a family member, a teacher, a neighbor, a husband—by anyone other than a Richard Allen Davis sort, in other words– were/are often scorned and blamed for “bringing it on themselves.” They still wear scarlet letters placed upon them by others as well as by themselves, even though they are victims.
This victimization of the victim still exists, and it was even more a problem in the 1980s when the Jennings incident occurred, yet we’d not likely excuse a teacher for not reporting to higher authorities what a female student had confided in him, would we? Even though that teacher was begged by the kid not to tell? Even though the kid might have faced am incredibly hard road ahead?
David,
I’m not at all surprised it is liberal. And your point about conservatives appointing conservatives and liberals appointing liberals is well taken.
I just thought it would be fun to point out that this guy – who someone on here (which, annoyingly, I can’t find) called anti-Christian – is a part of the body of believers. I wonder if that impacts anyone’s opinion at all.
Thank you, Michael,
Does anyone else agree with this statement:
“Yes, someone should have made Brewster know that his life was worth saving, that is was OK for him to be gay. Thank God that Jennings cared enough to do so.”
ANYONE??
@ Timothy,
I am sure that not every teacher would have said the things that Jennings said to “Brewster”.
But all of them would have said, “You deserve to live; lets get you some help and support.”
Again, see this through the lens of a teenage girl with similar feelings of nihilism and high risk behaviors.
Exactly the way I feel, TImothy. Very well said.
David Blakeslee ~ Oct 1, 2009 at 8:14 pm
So then do you or do you not agree with the following statement:
@ Everyone,
By 1974 Tarrasoff was the law of the land (California) for psychotherapists…danger to self or others, extreme emotional impairment.
I don’t know when this was applied to teachers, pastors and medical professionals.
But Massachusetts, certainly a state with progressive laws at the time, must have had some policies in place by the time Jennings was a teacher in the 1980′s. Does anyone know what they might have been.
What he said he should have done is exactly what he should have done.
Operating alone is full of problems and pitfalls. Emotion can over-ride good judgement. Consultation with other professionals protects both client and helper. Consultation is a major part of preparedness.
@Timothy,
.”
1). The topic addressed has been the behavior of the teacher. Your “I’ve yet to hear anyone say……” is an attempt to belittle the posters’ empathy and in particular to question their capacity for empathy for a gay boy. Come, on!
2) Hell yes, I would have cared about what the kid felt about his life. Hell, yes, I would have cared about his emotional state of mind. That is but another reason I would have not DONE NOTHING.
I would say it is OK for Brewster to be Brewster and he deserves our support and compassion…
I balk at endorsing a gay identity per se, but not that his SSA is real, that he has every right to be supported while he figures out how to integrate these feelings into his life. He’s 15, Timothy. Identity is only beginning to be formed. It is premature to label. IMHO. But not too early to acknowledge as real his attractions and the risks they pose to him (by gay-haters; and by gay exploiters).
Hi, Eddy:
What I’m talking about when I speak of differences, I’m talking about the personal, cultural, and social customs that have arisen among gay people. I’m talking about those cliches that happen to be true. Opera, Broadway, Soul Divas, wit, an aversion to violence, Camp, chick-flicks, close abiding friendships with straight women. I have seen super-femme gay boys and big straight acting galoots cry when Bette Midler sings “Hello in There.” There are a thousand little things that make up what can only be called a “gay sensibility.” This doesn’t mean that every single gay man has all or even most of these traits/likes/dislikes. They are simply shared by many of us. And yes all of those traits can be shared by straight people; but gay people bond around these commonalities and have added immeasurably to all of these areas of interest, deepening our connections to them and pride in ourselves and our community.
Jay Sweetie,
You have some of the most outrageous stereotypes for gays. One of those being disdain for violence. Please check the domestic violence records that occur in gay homes. Gays are outright against violence against gays until it is one of them doing the violent act. And then of course it becomes some other issue. But just like straights – gay domestic violence occurs – more often than gays want to admit.
Not to mention that in addition to the that there is the larger representation of the S&M culture within the gay community (per capita).
Mary, this is an outrageous and untrue statement. And I hope you know it.
What is your point here, Mary? Gays are people. They can have relationship, psychological and substance abuse problems that explode into violence — just like straights. What makes you think “gays” would not want to admit that?
You take Jay to task for his “stereotypes” and then lay down a few of your own — gays are soft on violence when they are the ones doing it, gays don’t want to admit the extent of domestic violence, etc. Where do these stereotypes come from, Mary? What makes you paint “gays” in such a light?
Michael,
I am sorry about the facts. Domestic violence occurs in gay and lesbian relationships. Gays and lesbians become so outraged when a straight attacks a gay for being gay but then behind closed doors – there is gay on gay violence and domestic violence in gay homes.
Of course, gays have this in common with the rest of the folks. Just showing that Jay’s comments were – well – uninformed. Gays don’t generally as a community have a disdain for violence. In public they have an outcry against violence. But when the doors are closed, there is more that goes on.
By the way Michael – please follow up with any police department in a large city and see what the actual reports of domestic violence in gay and lesbian homes looks like. Also, follow up with the GLBT Center and GLBT counselors who work specifically with couples.
Mary,
That’s like saying that women are against violence against women until women engage in violence against each other.
Gay men don’t relish the culture of violence the way that heterosexual men do. You don’t hear a lot about gay boxing fans. You don’t hear about brawls at gay bars (unless cops are targeting the bar for a harassment raid.
And as a gay man who has lived among and with gay men and has studied gay history for the last 24 years, I would say that I am far better situated to generalize about MY people than you are.
Yes there is domestic violence in gay households. Most experts will tell you that domestic violence is a generational problem. Domestically violent people come from homes in which domestic violence and/or emotional abuse took place. Gay people as children suffer a disproportionate amount of domestic violence at the hands of bigoted parents and subsequently might have higher incidences of domestic abuse. Also, there is a possibility that gays might be more likely to report domestic violence (less households with children forcing the batterer to report the crime, more financial independence, etc) or possibly more likely to be taken in and booked by some bigoted police officers.
S&M is the eroticization of pain, not necessarily violence. Although people who have experienced violence (and especially sexual violence) as children frequently develop SM tendencies as adults. In order to survive violence, some people try to make it their friend. For some adult survivors of abuse, it might even be a coping mechanism to avoid becoming a domestically violent person. Also, since gay people have been considered sexual outlaws; gay SM afficionados might simply be more open about their paraphilias than straight ones; so your statement that gay people are more into SM is on shaky ground, as well.
When your first instinct is to judge a whole group of people, rather than to understand them you offer nothing to discourse.
Sorry,
should have been “forcing the BATTERED PERSON NOT to report the crime”
That’s right. That’s exactly what I am saying.
And now you are providing the same lame excuse that some defense attornies have tried to get their clients off of a rape charge with.
BTW, Jay – you do know I was lived among “your” people for well over a decade?
I’m sorry that you are making excuses for people who have poor childhoods, toguh situations, and trauma. That does not give anyone a reason to perpetuate violence onto another human being or living creature for that matter.
I am sorry but the facts are the facts about domestic violence and gay households. Not so different from the rest of the populations that has suffered domestic violence.
Jay W. Walker said,
before he said,
Ironic. Telling.
And….
Uhhhh, not a good example.
Carole,
LOL!!! I went back to my dismall television watcning and thought “Hey, he’s just lump all heterosexual men into one group! Wonder what he would say about the ancient armies that required a soldier to fight alongside his male lover?”
Okay – Jay must be young and hasn’t thought some of these arguments out before.
Jay
I did not say more into S&M. I wrote – There is a larger representation of S&M in the gay culture. Meaning that gays are more outwardly expressive about this tendency if they have it than you would find in other “communities”.
Tsk tsk. You sound like someone else I know.
.
I’ve not heard of this. Have a source? Stats?
Mary Sweetie,
Perhaps you can provide some facts to support this assertion? Because by my last reading gay domestic violence was about the same as straight domestic violence.
And not only do we “admit” it, but we have programs to address it.
Sorry, Mistress Mary, I don’t get B/D or S/M but from what I hear these are as popular with straights as with gays. We just don’t have our version of a Peter LaBarbera to print scandalous pictures and pretend that it is representative of all straights. Your little per capita assumptions seem to be based in your own stereotypes, not Jays.
Incidentally, Mary, this whole train of argument is beginning to verge on ‘statements based on stereotype and assumptions of gay inferiority based on animus.’ I’ll not use the common word for that as it tends to ruffle feathers. I’d love it if you reconsidered some of both the assumptions and the way in which you are speaking.
Phrases like “gays become outraged” and “Gays are outright against violence against gays until it is one of them doing the violent act” are inflamatory and designed to smear, demean, and anger others at this site.
I was thinking precisely the same thing.
But for many years since you have been emersed in a culture that breeds, disseminates, and genuinely believes the very worst possible stereotypes about gay people. I think it is possible that in that time your attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions have become consistent with your communities shared attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions.
Carole,
On the issue of public interpersonal male relations, Jay is abosolutely correct in his characterization of avoiding violence. While there is domestic violence in all types of romantic relationships, anyone who deals with public violence will tell you that there is a sharp difference between the way in which gay men interreact with each other and the way straight men interreact.
I don’t know if it is cultural or for some other reason, but a gay bar can go years without a bar fight while this is a common occurrance in bars frequented by young straight men.
The most popular young people bar locations in Los Angeles are both in West Hollywood. Straight is on Sunset and gay is on Santa Monica, two parallel streets close to each other but worlds apart when it comes to fights or destruction of property.
I wouldn’t necessarily assume this is an intrinsic difference. It may be culture, it may be a hold over from the days when you absolutely did not want to draw attention, or it may be something else entirely. But it is true.
Timothy,
That;s what I said – that domestic violence exists in the gay community as much as it does in the heterosexual community -so the idea that they – gays – disdain violence more so than heterosexuals is inaccurate.
I said that S&M is given more outward expression by those who are into it that exist in the gay community – not that it exists at a greater level. Just given more of an outward expression by those who are into it. = thus once again showing that gays do not disdain violence more so than heterosexuals
And actually Timothy, I don’t live in a culture that breeds and disseminates the worst possible stereotypes about gays – remember I am a conservative christian who supports gay rights, gay marriage etc… and live in a “diverse” community, Unless you think gays are misrepresenting themselves, you can not possibly make the assertion of what culture I am influenced by.
You have confused facts with bigotry.
This veering off into a side discussion about violence and casting gay dysfunction against straight dysfunction is not generally helpful. It’s just the game of one-upmanship.
I do see that Jay was attempting to make a point in line with the original topic above by pointing back to the fear or distrust of police or the general downside of the closet culture. I’ve seen reports that gay domestic violence is sometimes covered up because of threats by one partner to out the other or just the fear that getting police involved would do the same. Domestic violence is horrible, no matter what the orientation of the batterers or victims. It’s hard to get a handle on accurate statistics.
This whole post started on a discussion of Jennings and has turned the corner many times.
I am surprised at the lattitude of excuses provided to a gay person by other gays. And then the yelling and crying about how gays are just like other people – excopt different. Is anyone else tired of the double standard? As well, when a particularly uncomfortable aspect of life in general is shown to exist in the gay community (as well as in the heterosexual community) gays seem to take it as an attack and run to the defense of all gay people.
Is anyone else tired of the double standard?
Yes.
Jay–
Thank you for your response re the differences. I’m sorry it got detoured around the issue of violence but I hear what you are saying. (Even about the overall attitude towards violence…I hear you…especially when you made it more clear with the allusion to sports like boxing. I realize you aren’t speaking for every gay man but I do believe you are speaking for a cultural norm. And every norm does seem to have its exceptions.
And the main reason I brought it up is that, here on the blog, we are constantly being confronted for using phrases like ‘I left the gay lifestyle behind’…and, people who use that phrase are often referring to those very issues that you elaborated on. We get judged for thinking in those terms and yet many gay people, yourself included, do. Frankly, I think it’s a matter of ‘say anything’ from a few of the bloggers. When the discussion of differences came up several weeks ago, I was more or less ‘put in my place’ for suggesting that there were differences in approach to life, to sexual matters, and in lifestyle. Now, the same people are arguing that there are differences. I’m not going to go there. The absurdity has reached a new high. I do thank you for weighing in and answering my question; I appreciated that your answer was straightforward and honest even if some people did take exception to the violence example.
Maybe not the ladies you hung out with, Mary, but the guys I know hate it — having been the target of it growing up. What makes you say something like this? What do you base this on, besides your own prejudice?
Gays are different and the same. Straights are different and the same. I think we have to be careful making generalizations about an entire group of people. Of course we are the same. We are human. Of course we are different. We are gay.
Being gay in a non-gay or even anti-gay culture is bound to create some differences in experience, attitude, beliefs, lifestyle etc. but these will vary from individual to individual.
What I am reacting to are group generalizations, negative sterotypes. I reject the implication that these “differences” make one group less valuable, less opposed to violence, less opposed to child abuse, less concerned with holiness, etc. than the other.
For example, Mary thinks gays, as a group, do not really disdain violence. It’s that kind of nonsense I am talking about.
Michael,
I am not sure but perhaps Mary is referring to domestic violence. I do not have any general population statistics but have personally known couples who have unfortunately had this occure in their relationships.
Mary
Do you genuinely not see that this sort of language is inflamatory and accusatory?
I’m not so fond of abuse. Y’know?
Ann, if that is what she means, she should make that clear. Of course gays, being human, are not immune to domestice violence, but to suggest that, as a community we do not have a “general disdain for violence” is just plain insulting. I agree with TImothy:
.I also agree with Debbie:
Michael,
I said “perhaps” because that was also another possibility. I do not think there is any more domestic violence in same gender couples than opposite gender couples. I could be wrong as my thoughts on this come from only personal observations.
Michael and Jay,
Guys, I think I’m going to let y’all carry the torch for a while on your own.
I’ve been paying attention during my latest participation at this site and I’ve come to some conclusions.
Those who comment here are not interested in resolution. They aren’t seeking a common ground. Rather, they are primarily interested in maligning gay people and communities and finding faults, real or imagined.
Perhaps this fills a need. I know that often ex-Christians are compelled to justify their bigotries and confirm their decisions by exaggerating every evil of anyone professing faith. I suspect something similar is at play here.
But whatever it is, I’m done. At least for now.
I’ve reached my limit for abuse. And far too much of it has been nasty, vile, and very very personal.
I’ve tried hard not to react to personal insults and slurs. And I have gone out of my way not to respond in kind; not to single people out for retribution, accusation, and abuse.
This has, however, been about as effective as giving in to the bully on the playground. By choosing not to attack others personally, it has only encouraged some to be ever bolder in their snide remarks, slurs, and contemptious postings.
I’ll admit I did lose it briefly when David Blakeslee claimed that I would next be lobbying for the right to have sex with children. That one was just too much.
But I could take that silly childish stuff if I were being effective. And clearly I’m not. So I’ll let those with more patience than me carry on. Or, at least for now.
God bless you,
Timothy
Timothy, it’s interesting and timely that I would come to check the blog and find your last comments. Because I just came from a time of prayer and reflection, during which, believe it or not, your name was particularly in front of me in a God-compelling way.
So, I had already planned to come here and say to you, especially, and for the benefit of others that I don’t want the hard time we have given each other in this discussion to be taken as a personal attack form either of us on the other. I have sought to stay above that, but I also realize how easy it is in rapid-fire exchanges for any of us to slip up and let our frustration get the better of us. If I have done that and have been overly offensive to you, I sincerely apologize.
I hope we can all realize the difference between disagreeing and trying to get at the facts and conflating personalities with ideologies.
I respect your beliefs, even when I can’t go along with them. I said yesterday or the day before that I believed you were sincere in your core beliefs. We differ on some key points, and ever will. So be it. Not the end of the world.
There comes a point of diminishing returns in these discussions, and when they turn into a cacophony of ad hominems and hair-splitting mini-tirades, they ought to be put aside.
Timothy,
Sorry I cannot read the whole post – who are you referring to when you say “they” and what kind of resoution would you like to have them interested in?
Michael – I have made it clear several times. You just do not read the whole post.
@Timothy,
To my “Uhhhh, not a good example,” about the lack of violence in gay vs. straight bars, you responded,
I agree that among most gays there is an avoidance of violence or physical as a way of resolving conflict. As the research of Bailey and others points out, the stereotype of little boys who wind up being gay avoiding the traditional rough (although not necessarily “violent”) masculine play, holds true as a generalization. Among those boys there is both an aversion to physical activities requiring competition, especially those involving one-on-one competition, and in many a fear of it.
As young men and adults, it still holds true, thus suggesting that even with the added incendiary stimulus of alcohol, gay men in bars would use their fists much less than their straight counterparts should conflict arise. Let it be said, however, that fighting among straight men adults is pretty much limited to a rather steady subset of them who committ a high proportion of those acts.
Second, like most straight bars, the gay bar is a social meeting place, a place where gay men find comraderie, and a place where they meet other gay men for sexual and/or romantic purposes–not a great place for violence if one wishes
to make an impression on the cute guy sitting next to him. Thus, my “Uhhh, not a good example.”
In straight bars where men wish to impress women, get a date with them or simply find a one-night stand, they too are not likely to indulge in violence. In fact, I’ve never been in a bar–in college where young men and women were looking to hook up nor since then as an adult and where any act of violence occurred. Never. Like I said, certain types of bars that serve a subset of males are those places where that stuff primarily occurs.
Physical assertiveness and even aggression need not and most often doesn’t lead to violence; in fact, among men, it’s only the knowledge that some men will not rule out the possibility of physical altercation if conflict grows heated that keeps physical altercations to a minimum. The “weaker” male backs off.
Thus, my “Uhhh, not a good example”–the bar example, that is, is a poor one for a variety of reasons when addressing the issue of domestic violence.
After all, just as there are plenty of straight men who would never challenge another man physically but who would indeed commit violence against their physical inferiors–wives, girlfriends–there appear to be gays who’d never challenge another man, particularly a straight man, but would indulge in violence against a partner. I don’t know in the case of gay domestic violence if these two cases are analogous since I don’t know if the aggressor is the physically dominant one in most cases. (And yes, I do know that straight women are often at fault in domestic violence cases but to the extent men are).
I do not have the same goodness or generosity of spirit that Debbie Thurman has in this matter. Timothy excuses himself from discussions when his hurtful remarks are met with confrontation. He seems oblivious to the fact that he can dish it out but cannot take it. It is easy to identify as a victim yet it takes courage to look in the mirror at one’s own behavior and then have the maturity and grace and humility to correct the wrongs that have been purposely directed to hurt others as he has done over and over and over again.
I am humbly asking Dr. Throckmorton to submit this post and not delete it.
@Timothy,
Sounds to me that there is a culture or tradition that has been allowed to develop in that area so that the “subset” of men I referred to have been allowed to continue to gather at the straight bar. There is no such place f in my community or even the surrounding communities. The bars in my area that cater to young people, have NO violence. What do you think?
I may not be feeling so generous in spirit tomorrow, Ann.
Timothy is a big boy, and he has to look at himself in the mirror, same as we all do. I will pray we will all stop to examine our motives and words now and then.
Carole, that has been my experience. I have been going to gay bars for years now, and have witnessed no acts of violence between the gay men. Some have gotten a little drunk and rowdy and had to be escorted out by the bouncer, but this is rare. Usually the atmosphere is social, relaxed, celebratory, cruisy and fun.
I have witnessed only a handful of physical altercations — shoving, hair-pulling, beer bottles being thrown,etc. — but these were always between women arguing over whose girlfriend was cruising who. But as I said, these incidents have been rare and were definitely alcohol-related. I have also witnessed physical attacks by straight guys who wandered in to start trouble.
I don’t know the stats on domestic violence and gays. I am sure it happens. Is it more common for gays than straights? More common for lesbians than gay men? Not making any assumptions, just curious.
Mary, I do not recall any “yelling and crying” — just objections to negative stereotypic generalizations about gays as a group or community. We are individuals!
Are we the “same” as straights? I think for the most part, yes. Same humanity. Same basic needs for love, attachment, family, purpose, meaning, safety, spirituality. Are we “different” that straights? Yes. Different attractions. Different experiences. Different sense of being in the world. But different does not mean good or bad. God is the God of variety and diversity. He didn’t stop at one color of butterfly or bird.
.
Michael,
The only real difference I have observed is individual attitudes – gays and straights (ugh, still hate labels) either choose to see each other with dignity and respect and as individuals fearfully and wonderfully made or they choose to see each other as part of an enemy group and act accordingly. Being civil is much easier when we don’t have to be right all the time.
In my post I added parenthetically,
Whoops–I meant “but not to the extent men are.”
It would be good for Kevin Jennings to put all this speculation to rest and allow himself to be interviewed on a tv show or hold a press conference to answer the questions that so many people have. Has he done that? It seems like he has a lot of people talking for him instead of for himself. Perhaps minds could be changed toward him if he addressed his past decisions and gave America the opportunity to see his sincerity.
WHAT?! Timothy’s gone AGAIN?? I swear he’s had more farewell performances than Cher! I love the very adult way he takes his leave hurling generalized, unproven insults around while playing the victim card. Almost an art form…oh…and a bit of a demonstration of the love for theatrics that Jay hinted at as a rather common characteristic of the gay community.
Michael said:
I agree with all of it except the last paragraph. I believe he is reacting to more than that. When someone uses a phrase like ‘gay lifestyle’, he takes offense and assumes they mean it as something negative. When I’ve spoken of a ‘gay identity’ or ‘identification with gay culture or sub-culture’, my terminology is strenuously rejected…and there’s the constant ‘I don’t know what you mean by ‘gay identity’ or ‘identifying with the gay culture’. I believe that to be bogus. In my gay hey-day we often joked that you could have your ‘gay card revoked’ if you didn’t like Barbra, Liza or Bette.
Years later, it was the likes of Donna Summer or comedienne Margaret Cho. Performers who are said to have a ‘large gay following’. Now, why is that? Are these performers gay? Are they attractive men? Yet there is something in each of them that touches a common thread of identification in large enough numbers to be recognized as a ‘large gay following’.
Jay touched on a love for the theatre, wit, camp, the non-sexual but close female relationship…while these may be generalizations, they are also very true and are hallmarks of the gay lifestyle. (Jack and Will were very different gay characters but it’s interesting that they both had the listed loves. Will appreciated theatre while Jack loved theatrics (especially if he was at the center); Will’s wit was often more intelligent than Jack’s but Jack’s had a touch more sting; Will could camp it up around other gays while Jack camped with every breath; Will had Grace but Jack had Karen.) Am I a ‘used to be gay’ who got sucked into a bad television show because it pandered to straight stereotypes of gays? If so, I joined a crowd of gays who also bought into it. The day of the final broadcast was a big enough deal that several of the gay bars were riveted to the final episode. Some said that there hadn’t been such a cultural bonding over non-sports TV since the days of the Dynasty nights. (True to gay humor and wit, one bar drew a huge crowd every week by showing Dynasty…they gave away free drinks whenever one of the ladies slapped the other.) This is part of ‘lifestyle’; responding to it is ‘identification’.
——-
I don’t have much to say re the ‘violence detour’. I see the reaction to Mary’s ‘stereotyping’ remarks but then I’m puzzled why there was no companion reaction to Jay’s ‘sterotyping’ remarks that gays were more sensitive and less violent. Why is proof and back-up demanded for Mary’s opinion but not for Jay’s?
I’d like to submit a possibility that we’ve overlooked in the discussion. Jay said ‘gays’ and it may have been more correct to say ‘gay men’. It was interesting that even Michael, in his rebuttal to Mary’s opinion, mentioned that the only physical fighting you might encounter in a gay bar was two drunk lesbians. That struck me because it mirrored something I had heard way back before my first trip into a gay bar. “Oh, it only looks dark on the outside. It’s a nice and safe place. The only thing you have to watch out for is the drunk lesbians with pool sticks.” I reject stereotypes so it makes me cringe to say that BUT most stereotypes have at least a kernel of truth buried within. Is it possible that one difference between gay women and gay men is that the women have a greater affinity for violence? Beyond the ‘drunk and rowdy lesbian’ stereotype, aren’t lesbians more inclined to be involved in contact sports than their gay male counterparts? Is it a real difference or simply a stereotype? And…with the fact that Mary was involved in the lesbian lifestyle, is it possible that she saw more of this violent tendency than the men did?
For anyone who is interested – please google this search
gay domestic violence
My goodness – we are using gay bar behavior as the gauge for gays? That’s offensive. And we have all seen some pretty nasty things happen in some gay bars. I AM SURE not all gays act that way in public.
Here’s the link for those who are brave enough to look.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=ZWjGSrmIH4XmM7_4-fIH&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gay+domestic+violence&spell=1
Really, Mary. How often do you go to Gay bars? And we were not using Gay bars as a guage for gays. But since both straigt men and gay men congregate in bars, I thought that comparing levels of violence between the two would be illustrative of my point.
And I think that was clear to everyone here but you, Mary.