Israel Cured Me of Islamophobia

Today I was waiting for a bus in Hamilton and a Muslim family walked by. I noticed because she was wearing the hijab. He was looking quite hip, and they had two children as well as a baby on the way. And my usual internal reaction would have been — ‘There they go, those Muslims.  Just like the Catholics — all they do is reproduce like crazy so they can take over the world.’

But then, uncharacteristically, I quashed these Islamophobic thoughts.

I am acknowledging my own Islamophobia here, hoping this acknowledgement of my own prejudice might help eradicate it in others. Because honestly, how could one live in North America — with the anti-Muslim rhetoric at full blast — without it turning you against Muslims just a bit? 

But having just returned from Israel, it occurred to me that the family I saw on the street in Hamilton were not Muslims. They were just people. I think Jaffa, Israel was the origin of my revelation — an ancient city where Muslims and Jews have lived together in peace for centuries. And why shouldn’t they? There are Iots of Muslims all over Israel (not just in Palestine) co-existing quite happily with Jews. And there are lots of Muslims in Israel who would rather live in Tel Aviv than Palestine. In other words there are lots of Muslims who are tolerant of other religions. Muslims are just people, like you and me.

And you might ask ‘What about this Muslim suicide bombers?’ Or, if you are coming from the other side — ‘What about the Muslim folks pushed out of their homes by the Israeli settlements?’

But let me tell you, those are only the fundamentalists.

In case you haven’t guessed, although I no longer consider myself Islamophobic, I am a confirmed ‘fundamentalist-phobe.’ I hate and fear all fundamentalist religions. I don’t think hate is too strong a word if one considers the appalling violence done in the name of religion. If fundamentalism didn’t exist, if people stopped trying to convert others to their religious beliefs, if people didn’t try to follow rules inscribed in centuries old books — rules probably translated inaccurately, which should be open to interpretation, which are nevertheless held to be the word of God — well, the world would be a much happier place.

And I’m afraid what I really don’t understand (as a gay man) is why so many queers hate Israel. 

Sure, Israel is being run by a sort of Jewish Donald Trump right now (Netanyahu) who has just appointed a particularly fascistic defence minister named Liberman who has said that Arabs not loyal to Israel should be beheaded. But blaming Israel for electing the wrong person ignores all the sensible people who voted against him. (Was Stephen Harper my fault? I voted for  Jack Layton!)

Israel is a very tolerant, pro-feminist, pro-queer country. Though gays cannot marry because civil marriage doesn’t exist, queer married couples arriving from elsewhere are considered legally married by the government. Tel Aviv has a thriving gay scene, gays are welcome in the military, right now there are rainbow flags all over Tel Aviv for their sexy pride.

Why can’t left-wing queers celebrate Israel’s tolerance for queers, and stand behind a country that (despite it’s colonialist beginnings) has its origins in love? Israel is a great, terribly important experiment. If Jews and Muslims can learn to live there without killing each other, then religions can live together anywhere in the world.

It’s time to support Israel. Because all Israelis don’t hate Muslims — only extremists like Liberman do.

And similarly, most Muslims in Israel don’t hate Jews.

Well, a trip to Israel sure cured me of my Islamophobia.

Now I have to work on my feelings about Catholics……

SAVING HOPE Please Give Up!

The writers for the Canadian television show Saving Hope  have come up with a pledge to improve the representation of LGBT people on television. Their pledge seems to me to be a case of way too little, way too late

The recent death of a lesbian character on The 100 has caused young (presumably queer) youth to harm themselves. Adam Pettle (writer) and Noelle Carbone (producer) state that  “queer characters are so underrepresented on television that killing off even one makes a tremendous negative impact.” They go on to say “it perpetuates a message of despair when what we really should be saying is, ‘Hang in there. It gets better!’”

First of all I don’t think that writers should be making pacts with other writers and producers to write one particular type of story or version of life. Life is hard, eh? Does it serve anyone to whitewash it and make it look pretty when it’s not? And though I’m sure gay youth have it tough these days, protecting them from certain images and ideas is simply going to do further damage to their tender psyches. In this digital age it’s all about how many people give a thumbs up on Youtube. But entertainment only approaches art when it sails in uncharted territory. Trigger warnings on TV we don’t need — they will only make our TV shows more banal than ever before.

And why present gay and lesbian characters in nothing but positive situations — when the world is getting worse for queer people?

New anti-gay hate laws are now on the books in Indiana, Arizona, Mississippi, and Georgia, allowing employers to discriminate against queer people in the name of ‘religious freedom.’ Kids everywhere are still afraid to tell their parents they are gay, because they know they might get kicked out of the house. Gay men right now are seeing a serious epidemic and drug usage (crystal meth is rampant ). What about all the confusion about AIDS and condom-less sex and PrEP? What about the criminalization of AIDS? And I don’t know how to tell you this, but our future can look pretty bleak sometimes, because after struggling with AIDS for thirty years, we queers are brimful of guilt, shame and anxiety about something that just used to be lots of fun — sex!

Anyway, it shouldn't be about fostering greater gay and lesbian representation on straight TV shows;  it should be about throwing old straight TV shows in the trash and creating new and fantastic Gay and Lesbian TV shows and movies, PERIOD!

Why not have TV shows that feature only gay and lesbian characters and delve into the complex details of our postmodern lives?

Wouldn’t straight people want to watch these shows?

Come on. For years gays and lesbians have been enduring straight TV shows,  trying to sympathize with all their straight-people-problems — and doing a pretty good job of it. Why can’t straight people watch shows about gays and lesbians and try reading their lives into ours?

A good start might be if mainstream reviewers stopped criticizing gay and lesbian stories because they are gay. For instance, Norman Wilner in this week’s Now Magazine trashes a movie called Viva (about a gay hustler drag queen) as “just a bog-standard indie about a son coming out to his disapproving father.” Wow Mr. Wilner. How many movies have you seen that feature the ol' ‘bog standard’ plot line ‘boy loves girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl’?

It’s time for straight people to open up their minds and hearts and sex lives. People sure seem to love opening themselves up to other cultures these days (My Big Fat Greek Wedding was one the most popular movies of all time and spawned a recent piece-of-garbage sequel). Why not take some tips from queer culture?

Where are all the gay and lesbian TV and movie writers, producers, actors and actresses?

Why don’t they come out and start creating shows about themselves?

(Noelle Carbone, why not take a lesson from Christine Vachon?)

And now that Leonardo di Caprio finally won an Oscar — is he also finally going to admit he’s a fag?

These are the serious questions on my mind, while Saving Hope prays for more positive role models.

Trans People Need to Honour Their History

I was at a trans event the other day. The speaker was a self-identified trans writer and performer who uses the pronoun ‘they.’ The room was filled with what appeared to me to be lesbians (along with a smattering of trans people). The trans speaker was talking about their experience as a young girl playing hockey and not being allowed to play on the boys’ team. It struck me as ironic that a room full of lesbians had come to hear someone speak about a subject that used to be a lesbian narrative (i.e. ’my difficult tomboy past’). However, now —  it has become a trans narrative.

I’m not of course suggesting that the tomboy narrative should be owned exclusively by either lesbians or trans people. But it does strike me that what was once thought largely to be a lesbian life story, has now for many become instead a trans story.

Why?

And could this have something to do with what some have termed the dilemma of the ‘vanishing lesbian’?

I would certainly say that gays and lesbians are somewhat to blame. Gays and lesbians these days want to be just like straights.  In the same way that gay men no longer wish to be associated with effeminacy, lesbians no longer wish to be associated with masculinity. Gays and lesbians would rather be seen as gender ‘normal.’

But there is another huge contributing factor here: the trans community’s rejection of its own history. Traditionally, trans people claimed to be ‘trapped in the wrong body.’ Through surgery they were able to correct this. These days, the mantra I hear from trans people everywhere is ‘Please don’t repeat that annoying old idea that trans people are people who are trapped in the wrong body! That’s really out of date!’

Is it out of date? 

Or is it history? 

And why anyone seek to erase history?

Now I understand that trans people might want to expand the notion of trans to include people who have no desire for surgery. And I agree with the whole concept of self-identifying. We all must all be allowed to choose our gender, regardless of our equipment. But must the trans community reject those whose trans identity is intrinsically bound up with dramatic body modification (i.e. the creation of a new set of genitals?).

It seems to me that — at the same time as lesbians and gay men are disassociating themselves from gender issues— the trans community is seeking exclusively to own gender issues.

The result is more than just a tragic denial of history. 

Being gay and lesbian is now only about who we have sex with, and being trans is now only about gender. Doesn't this fracture our community? Doesn’t this now, ironically, divide us further and increase our dependence on labelling? And doesn’t this encourage tomboys to think of themselves as young trans people, rather than as lesbians?

Why can’t trans people proudly include in their ranks (and their philosophy) those who wish to have sex changes due to dissatisfaction with their own bodies? Why can’t trans people realize that being gay and lesbian is as much a gender issue as an issue of sexuality? And most of all, why can’t gay and lesbian people be proud of masculine dykes and feminine fags — instead of demonizing them and trying to convince the world that all gays and lesbians are gender normal?

I say this as proud gay man, and a drag queen. But I also say this as someone who identifies as a trans person.

Come on, let’s all get together! It will serve us all. And it will serve the cause we all have in common.

The liberation of queer people.

HOW TO LOVE WOMEN by Sky Gilbert

I know this may seem strange coming for a gay man, but I’m going to try and tell you what it means when a man loves a woman (apologies, Percy Sledge).

I’ve noticed that when Donald Trump and other straight men are accused of being misogynistic, they often come up with the same answer. ‘I love women,’ they say, adding, for good measure — ‘I’ve always loved women.’

Well I wish to clarify the difference between having sex with women and loving them.

You see what these guys mean when they say ‘I love women and therefore I am not a woman-hater,’ is ‘I desire women, sexually, and have sex with them, and therefore I am not a woman-hater.’

But sex is not the same as love. And just because you have sexual desire for women and/or have sex with them, doesn’t mean that you love women.

What does it mean to love a woman?

To love a woman, you must, first of all, have respect for her. You must give her the same respect you give a man. She must feel free to get angry: do not call her a bitch if she raises her voice. You must not demand that she ‘act like a woman’ but accept that whatever way in which she chooses to act is the way a woman acts, because she is, after all, a woman. You must listen to her. If you, as a male, have greater body size, weight and power than she does (as most men do) then you must not threaten her with that power. Above all, whatever sexual or romantic feelings you have about her, you must always remember that she is a human being, and not just a body you are attracted to. You must focus on, respond to, and interact with her personality, intelligence and her ideas. You must install governments that give her equal pay, and you must only be employed by corporations that are governed by equal numbers of female CE0’s and Vice Presidents as men. Finally, you must acknowledge that any work that women want to do, is suitable for them. And, most importantly, you must want to do all the things I have articulated above. The impulse must come naturally. You mustn’t have to work hard to ‘give women what they want.’ It should simply be common sense to treat women (when you are not having sex with them) exactly the same way as you would treat men.

Now when you think about the above, does it frighten you, or make you angry? Do you have a deep nostalgia for the ‘good old days’ when ‘men were men and women were women’?

If so, you may be misogynistic

But don’t worry because it’s probably not your fault.

After all, we live in a patriarchal culture that still heavily privileges men and which is fundamentally distrustful of women (remember Eve and the serpent?).

All you can do is your best. Try and change.

And what if the idea of treating a woman like a man makes relationships with women seem less, well….sexy?

That’s just because ‘difference’ of any kind is both scary and sexy, and power differentials are the sexiest thing of all.

Just  remember that if it turns you on to have power over someone else — or for them to have power over you — that is sex. Even just talking is sex — if you are playing chatty power games. If you want to consensually do that with someone — go ahead. But please don’t do it while you are planning your retirement income or arranging to have someone come in and spray the trees. It’s sexist and inappropriate.

You can only ‘play with power’ when you are having consensual sex.

And you can’t have sex with women 24 hours a day.

And if you don’t understand that concept, then  —at the very least — you need professional help.

It takes a village to raise a child; and it takes a gay man to tell you guys how to love women. 

Sex is Gay Again!

On February 25 Buzzfeed announced the first ever documented case of someone on PrEP testing positive for HIV. 

First of all, it’s important to note that PrEP is almost 100% effective at preventing men who are not already HIV positive from contracting the HIV virus.  Just as one example — of the 1,400 people taking PrEP in an ongoing study led by the Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, not a single one of them has contracted HIV.   

The fact is that PrEP is a kind of magic pill. By that, I mean that gay men — who have been living under a cloud of fear (since the advent of AIDS nearly 35 years ago) — can at last have guilt-free, worry-free sex. 

Gay sex is gay again.

The reason I don’t set much store by this single case of PrEP ‘failure,’ is because, infuriatingly, ignorant attitudes around AIDS have always been informed by the notion that ‘we can never be 100% sure.’ Remember when people were uncertain about letting their kids go to school with other kids who had HIV? After being reassured that it was highly, highly unlikely that their children would ever get AIDS from contact with a child who had HIV, over and over the parents would come back with the inevitable question — ‘But is it not possible that my child might get AIDS from an AIDS infected child?’ And which point the medical expert would be obliged to say: ‘Well it’s possible…anything is possible, but —‘ 

The same logic has been used around oral sex. There is very little risk of getting HIV from oral sex. It would have saved countless lives if gay men had been told they could substitute worry-free oral for worrisome anal. But no, AIDS organizations have always insisted on reminding us over and over ‘well of course it’s possible to get AIDS from oral sex.’

Yeah, right. And it’s also possible I could win the lottery and get hit my lightening at the same time.

You see, when people are wielding the politics of fear, there is always cause for worry.

The important thing to remember about this person who contracted HIV while taking PrEP is this: the evidence is completely and utterly unscientific. Proof that he actually did get HIV while on PrEP is entirely dependent on whether the man was faithfully taking his meds. But the only confirmation for that is his word.

Now I’m not calling this guy a liar. And I certainly don’t wish to demonize him. But he has stepped forward with information that simply cannot be scientifically proved. Add to this the fact that during the period when this man claimed to be taking his meds every day, he was taking anti-depressive drugs, and having serious health problems. And the way this man talks about what happened to him, shows some misconceptions about AIDS, if not a certain bias: “It’s important for people to know that there is the possibility, as opposed to the fantasy that there have been no recorded infections on PrEP.”  

Why is it important to note that, with due respect, sir?

Facts are facts. But could we admit there is an agenda out there? Could we admit that there are lots of Catholics, members of the religious right, and yes — even uptight fags —who would rather gay men were not having sex without guilt? 

I don’t call it living in a fantasy world to believe in the countless scientific studies that affirm the efficacy of PrEP,

I call people taking advantage of on one guy’s undocumented claim that he faithfully took his meds  — another kind of fantasy.

And I’m kind of frightened to think of the prejudice, sex-hatred, and ill-will that might be motivating it.

STAGE TECHNICIANS AT FACTORY THEATRE: PLEASE STOP!

According to the IATSE Local 58 Facebook page, the stage technicians at Factory Theatre voted unanimously for union representation on February 3, 2016.

Respectfully, I ask these employees to reconsider their decision before it is too late. This is a horrible precedent to set. IATSE is a sexist organization.  It is incredibly ironic that IATSE has decided to set up shop at the only theatre of size in Toronto that is run by a non-white woman (Nina Aquino is the Artistic Director). I can only see this as an attack on her.

First, let me be completely clear about my position on unions. I am a union member and a card-carrying ‘leftie.’ I have been very active in my own union - Canadian Actor’s Equity Association — for more than 30 years. My activity has consisted mainly of trying to modernize the organization in a desperate attempt to pull it out of the sexist, homophobic, and ‘commercial- theatre’ focused Victorian mindset. I have met with some success in trying to make those in charge at Equity understand that their organization serves no one if they are sexist and homophobic, and if they do not understand the difference between entertainment and art. I have not entirely succeeded. During my many campaigns to bring Canadian Actors Equity into the 21st century I have been called many things, among them, ‘union hater.’

I am not a union hater. I believe that workers need and must have representation and empowerment in the battle against corrupt employers. They must have unions. However, I care so much about my union that I want it to make sure that it is as responsive as it can be to all of its members. However, union administrators who have vested interests to protect (i.e. personal money and power), insist on calling me a union-hater.

When it comes to IATSE, I have tried my best to find out statistics about the membership of IATSE worldwide, and have met with no luck. As far as I can tell there are absolutely NO statistics available anywhere online about the number of stage technicians in Toronto who are women or persons of colour. This, in itself, is suspicious. I went onto the IATSE 873 website, which seems to represent Toronto film employees. I looked at the charter members listed there. Of 60 names, there were 52 men. I did not find any names that were recognizably African, or Asian, or recognizably ‘not European.’

This isn’t my only reason for calling the organization sexist. I have worked with many female colleagues who are set, lighting and costume designers. These women have told me uniformly, across the board, they have been treated with  more than just disrespect by members of IATSTE; they have been treated with contempt. IATSE members treat women who hold powerful artistic positions as idiots —simply  because they are women. Just ask any woman who has had to give orders to IATSE. Just ask any male member of IATSE who has been forced to take orders from women.

You’ll see.

I understand that  there may be important labor issues going on at Factory Theatre, and 

the workers there may very well be underpaid and oppressed, and may not have felt that their needs will be met without help.  That is no reason to become members of this antiquarian organization, without at the very least taking time to question their policies.

If all mid-size theatres were to become IATSE in Toronto it would be the end of non-commercial theatre in this city. Mid-size theatres will simply not be able to afford to pay them. This of course, is another reason to oppose the IATSE takeover of Factory. IATSE needs not only to respect women theatre-makers, but to respect not-for-profit theatre, theatre that cannot be funded by mega-corporations like Mirvish or TD bank — because the scripts of not-for-profit theatres  contain radical, controversial ideas that threaten the conservative, capitalist-centric corporate world.

For years I have watched the Canadian Actor’s Equity organization use the fact that they speak for working class people as a shield to protect them from accusations of sexism, racism, homophobia, and even classism.

But unions must not be beyond criticism.

I plead with the stage technicians at Factory; only go ahead and join IATSTE if your first demand is that all of the IATSE stage technicians working at Factory be non-white women.

If you are not willing to do that…then you are taking the first step towards killing Toronto theatre.

The Theatrical Closet: Just a Question

In the past few years I have been asked to contribute comments to the odd biography of the odd deceased theatre person here and there. That is, biographers of the said dead theatre persons have contacted me, saying “I know you have a history with this dead theatre person, do you have anything to say about them?” In several cases I have sent back quite a long essay. And if the theatre person was closeted, then in my essay I always speak at length about the person in the context of their sexuality and mine. This is not to be mean, or to ‘out’ a dead person in ‘spite.’ It is because their actions — which had very much to do with their closeted sexuality — affected Canadian theatre very deeply and importantly, and the facts should be known.

You see, when you are an ‘out’ theatre person (not as common as one might think!) the opposition you receive in terms of your career is not so much from straight people, but from closeted gay and lesbian people. Why? Well they are the ones who have the most to lose.

I have a long history with queer, closeted theatrical types (some now dead) who gave me a lot of trouble. What kind of trouble? Well they would denounce my work, call it worthless or irrelevant, and just generally dismiss me. For by dismissing me, they also commit the very important act of distancing themselves from homosexuality. “I’ll have none of that Sky Gilbert business! I don’t like it, and it’s not for me!”

I’ve had to endure this kind of treatment for years. I remember when I was on a Canada Council jury with Eric Peterson back in 1983. (I was barely an infant! And so was he!) Now let me be clear, Eric Peterson is neither gay, nor closeted, nor any more homophobic than the Average Joe. But at one point he leaned over to me and said “I wish I had visited Buddies in Bad Times, but you know…a lot of people would be kind of afraid to go there — without wearing a paper bag over their head!” 

I knew that he was actually trying in his own way to reach out to me — to be kind — and I didn’t hold it against him. But it has always struck me as a perfect expression of the atmosphere within which I was forced to work.

So recently when people have asked me to comment on this or that dead closeted theatre person for a biography, I figure, well — why not just tell the truth? 

I mean, they are dead, after all.

Who can it hurt?

Well, it turns out, the living family.

The living family don’t want anybody to know that the unnamed (and unnameable) dead theatre person was gay or lesbian or bisexual or whatever they were. So the biographer says to me “Well I will try and use some of your memories of this dead closeted gay or lesbian theatre person, but not the memories of their queerness, because the family would not approve.”

When this happens, I always think of that scene from Carrie.

Many years ago I worked as an usher at the Uptown Cinema. At the end of the movie we ushers would rush to the doors of the theatre just to hear all 500 patrons scream at the same time. You know the scene; Amy Irving bends down to put flowers on Carrie’s grave and suddenly a bloody hand pokes out of the ground and grabs her, trying to pull her into the earth?

It’s a cold dark hand from the gaping maw of hell trying to yank the living into the land of the dead.

That’s kinda what it feels like when I’m told I can’t talk about the sexuality of this or that dead closeted gay theatre person even after they have died.

You know what? I know you value your family. But so do I — my gay and lesbian family. A family of people who share a history.

But  how can we and love ourselves, how can we even believe in the reality of our lives when we are asked to hide the truth forever?

Just a question…..