Alex Blaze

Why Are Advocate Columnists So Bad?

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 04, 2011 2:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Media
Tags: Bil Browning, LGBT, regent media, The Advocate, Zack Rosen

Zack Rosen takes exception to Bil's post on him from last week, Zack-Rosen.jpgbut doesn't really seem to know how to respond. So instead of addressing Bil's issues (I don't agree with Bil either - my response to him is in the comment thread of that post), Rosen takes to The Advocate and makes my all-time favorite, self-contradictory and -pitying, STFU arguments ever: Queer people should stop the in-fighting and just agree with me!

I say it's my all-time favorite for a reason. I've been in this business for a while, and, when someone doesn't know why they believe something, it's easier to tell people to shut up than to defend their view or at least admit that their view isn't for everyone. Add in a heaping spoonful of self-pity, and suddenly it's those who cannot defend their views or actions who are victimized by the fact that they even have to explain themselves, ever, to anyone who isn't a cartoonish homophobe like Peter Labarbera.

Go and read the whole column, which was bizarrely entitled "The Case Against Activism," Rosen doesn't have any reason to disagree with Bil other than that people should just give him (Rosen) a break. Rosen goes on to include other organizations, like GetEqual, in his call to just stop trying to argue with queer activists (forgetting a certain GetEqual's leader's not-too-distant history with calling out other queer activists), but then tells other queer activists that their work is annoying and needs to stop.

There's no explanation as to why some people are hardworking activists who should be allowed to blossom free from all criticism and others need to be stomped out lest they demoralize the Real Activists. Feel free to read between Rosen's lines; the answer isn't explicit and I'm not sure he knows it either.

I'm pointing this out not because Rosen attacked Bil on something I already didn't agree with Bil on (more accurately: I agree vaguely with his original thesis but thought he was applying it to an example that didn't make his case), but because this person published his pointless, self-contradictory, poorly-written column in the LGBT paper of record. Rosen wasn't able to point to any reason why Bil's argument wasn't cogent. Not a one! It's a shocking failure - Bil's argument, as all arguments do, had its weaknesses.

This comes a little after Rosen's column whining about how non-cissexual, non-white, non-male queer people sometimes complain about other forms of oppression. I suppose this is Part 2: There are cissexual, white males I want to see shut up too!

What does that say about the queers that this is the sort of drivel that gets published in what's supposed to be the voice of the community?

I've taken to responding to Michael Lucas columns in The Advocate, mainly because I believe that there should be a journal like it and that it should be good enough to find a decent queer conservative to make honest, intelligent arguments, and good enough to have several queer liberals and leftists to accompany the conservative's column, all part of a diverse and rigorous intra-community discussion. Right now they have a few centrists and one Beck-esque right-winger, and they lost their best non-ideological columnist, Kerry Eleveld.

Perhaps the reason they keep on publishing Michael Lucas and other substandard columnists (not to say that they don't get good occasional contributors) is because they don't pay:

In the last couple of days, we've gotten several notes from various freelance writers complaining about problems getting paid by Regent. Among the complaints:

  • One writer says that The Advocate ran several of his stories in three consecutive months last fall. Despite having "pay on publication" contracts, he hasn't gotten paid yet. He also says that despite some "sympathetic correspondence from some of the editorial staff," the publisher is neither showing any urgency to pay, nor communicating with him.
  • Another freelancer says he is close to taking Regent to small claims court--he has invoices dating back seven months, and the company has not volunteered any timeline for when it might pay up.
  • Another freelancer says he filed a story for Out last May, which was published last October. He still hasn't been paid for it, and the assigning editor is not returning his emails.
  • "Out owes me money too!" complains another writer. And another says: "I am owed $ from the Advocate. I would attach my name but Gawker scares the shit out of me for obvious reasons." We're not that bad, much of the time!

But don't assume that they're too poor to pay the $300 a friend of mine says they didn't pay for almost a year:

colichmanhome.jpgPaul Colichman, the chief executive of Regent/Here Media, is the nice guy who on Sunday opened his home to raise money for the AIDS Project Los Angeles (whose annual AIDS walk just raised $3.1 million). For $150, cocktail-attired guests were invited to schmooze with elite LA A-Gays and Tony-winner John Lloyd Young. But "home" is too delicate a word to describe the new Bel Air mansion Colichman just moved in to with partner David Millbern, the Ice Spiders (?) actor.

You're welcome to send your housewarming gift to 290 Strada Corta Road (a publicly available address), because this fall the duo abandoned their four-bedroom/six-bath 4,550-square foot squatters camp at 10450 Revuelta Way in Los Angeles, which they rented for an estimated $10,000/month, to their new 26-room (nine beds! eight baths!), 6,879-square-footer that overlooks the tony Bel Air Country club. Oh, and there's a (brand new) Maserati parked in the drive. (The new home was assessed this year at $3.5 million, though its "Zestimated" at $9.1 million.)

Because that is how gay media moguls roll!

[These folks are being sued by some huge banks for $90 million saying they committed fraud to get loans and never invested the loan money properly, instead keeping it for themselves.--Ed.]

I'll go out on a limb and guess that management at The Advocate leans to the right.

Maybe it's a sign of the times. With so much media being owned by uber-wealthy people who then use their power to get a right-ward, pro-stupid bend on coverage, perhaps it would be more surprising if the biggest LGBT paper didn't go down that path as well.


Recent Entries Filed under Media:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Queer people should stop the in-fighting and just agree with me!

That's not what Rosen was saying, and frankly, I think he made some pretty valid points.

When a group of people shows up to protest NOM, an organization that's an integral part of a well-funded, well-connected and widely supported political movement bent on keeping us under the boot (i.e. the religious right), and then a bunch of other GLBT activists show up to protest them, exactly that kind of message does that send? What kind of image does that project?

What about when somebody throws a fit at a same-sex marriage meeting because it's not about their own little cause? Or when a group calling itself "Queers Against Assimilation" vandalizes the headquarters of HRC? Or when a group of GLBT people proudly declares itself to be opposed to equality (which happens to describe both the left-wing radical queers and the right-wing GOProud!)? Or when some GLBT people actively oppose attempts to address the second-class citizenship of GLBT people out of some futilely delusional hope that they're working toward a utopian future in which nobody marries, militaries don't exist and nobody is put in prison?

In every civil rights movement, there's always a subset of people who, in some ways, want to continue being oppressed, or to be more specific, enjoy certain vestigial consequences of oppression, thinking they're the natural order of things. Thus, you had Black Muslims in the 1950s and 1960s opposed to integration because segregation kept them apart from white people. Today, you have radical queers opposed to GLBT equality because they think we should all be promiscuous sluts instead of finding steady relationships and seeking legal recognition and protection for them.

By the way, regarding your last paragraph, I'm inclined to be skeptical of media criticism by anyone who doesn't know that "media" is a plural noun.

What's the tangible difference between throwing a fit at a same-sex marriage meeting because they don't support your pet cause and throwing a fit in a magazine column because the blogosphere doesn't support your pet cause?

I think the point you're missing AJD, is that each of the examples of divisive actions you cite are reactions to other actions of division -- it takes two to in-fight.

I've been in a dozen conferences, organizations, movements, etc, where something is done in a very racist/sexist/transphobic/etc way, but the people in charge don't realize that because it's invisibilized as "normal." Then whatever marginalized community stands up and points out the way it's oppressive. Then the privileged organizers call them "divisive" while completely ignoring the ways their oppressive organizing is the divisive action that began it.

Let's look closely at one cited example: the QAA vs the HRC. I'm not going to argue about the merits and flaws of vandalism here, but are you seriously going to say that the QAA caused more harm to the HRC with their glitter based vandalism than the HRC did to the trans community with their frequent anti-trans political campaigns? Why is it that the QAA's behavior is labeled divisive when the HRC's behavior is not? Rosen acknowledges the HRC's inappropriate actions and simple says that it's probably better having them around then not, why isn't the same applied to the QAA? Frankly, the only reason I can that argument making sense is if you don't experience anti-trans discrimination and see ending it as tangential to your actual goals.

And one more: I'm a promiscuous slut AND I have steady relationships and seek legal recognition for them. Why is it okay for marriage equality activists to tell me that my relationship recognition rights are a lower priority that we shouldn't work on, but it's "divisive" and you would label me as "opposed to GLBT equality" if I were to tell them the same thing?

What's the tangible difference between throwing a fit at a same-sex marriage meeting because they don't support your pet cause and throwing a fit in a magazine column because the blogosphere doesn't support your pet cause?

The tangible difference is that Bil criticized Zac Rosen, and Rosen responded. There's a difference between responding to an attack and going to a meeting with the intention of disrupting it.

Also, notwithstanding issues of transphobia or exclusion of transgender people, a more important question to ask about the QAA/HRC affair is this: What did QAA actually accomplish? All they did was force a bunch of people to take time out of their day to clean up a big mess.

Lastly, with respect to my comments about seeking stable relationships and legal recognition thereof versus being a promiscuous slut, the key word was "instead." I never said they were mutually exclusive.

AJD, you put forward two criteria for judging which divisive action is worse: responding to an attack vs making the first attack, and how effective an action is. But you only apply these criteria to the actions you disagree with, which is exactly what my point was.

First, I've been to plenty of marriage equality meetings with the intention of fighting for my and my communities' rights to relationship recognition and suddenly find my own relationships under attack by other people there. If I were to have thrown a fit, it would have been in response to an attack. Additionally, the majority of such arguments begin in larger LGBTQ spaces where marriage is not the sole issue.

Each of these cases can be characterized as responding to an attack. Whether you agree or not with that doesn't matter, I'm sure those who disagree with Rosen might contend the validity of some "attacks" that he is responding to.

Secondly, since most in-fighting doesn't accomplish much, I don't think "effectiveness" is as useful a criteria as "lack of destructiveness," wouldn't you agree? Either way, you can't examine the QAA vandalism without looking at what they were responding to as well. The QAA was not effective in any measurable way, but minimally destructive. Whereas, the HRC's anti-trans political actions have not been effective at gaining LGB(t) rights, but they have been incredibly destructive both for trans political rights and for LGBTQ community unity and collaboration. Yet both you and Rosen condemn the QAA in stronger terms than the HRC.

Additionally, let's compare the QAA vandalism and Rosen's article based on your two criteria: both are responding to an attack, both are ineffective. Yet you are defending one and condemning another. It seems to me that the third and more powerful criteria is "does the action reflect your own political viewpoint?"

Before we can have an effective conversation about how to end infighting, we have to acknowledge that each side does it and recognize that idea that progressive/radical activists are divisive while moderate liberals are making reasonable responses to an attack is just a myth.

I have to agree. Rosen made several valid points, but from what this article forwards, the reader would think he was a vapid shallow "Mean Girl." You just did what he piece suggested, that we rip each other apart instead of just setting childish behavior aside and focusing on those that truly hate us. This article is what is wrong with this movement, because it is juvenile and counter-productive. Recognize when you are writing to engage true discussion and debate and when you are writing out of "butt-hurt" emotion. Why can't we just recognize that all movements have faults, recognize where we have made mistakes, own our failures, and work together to actually create constructive solutions to prevent future mistakes, instead of this self-involved blog attacking.

One of the first things I ever learned when coming to understand a fraction of what is social justice was that privilege exists, it is not earned but rather given, it is not to feel guilty over, but rather privilege is a tool that those that have it can use to change that status quo. To attack people for the size of their house for attempting to raise money for charity, to make a point for salary justice is just ridiculous. No one has a monopoly on truth or justice, and we should recognize that we have to cede our egos to get results we want. If you have a problem with the Advocate find a better way than to drag people's personal lives into it. You should want to be better than that.

"To attack people for the size of their house for attempting to raise money for charity, to make a point for salary justice is just ridiculous."

Well, Joe, I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm quite certain you'd be scrutinising your boss's salary and living style (what you refer to as "personal lives" if you weren't getting paid. Case in point? Goldman Sachs. Lehman Brothers. Etc. And let me pre-empt any arguments about freelancers needing to buck up and face the fire etc. by pointing out that a) this economy is increasingly comprised of freelancers and contract workers and b) people depend on being paid decently and on time to keep their livelihooods going.

Your point about privilege? Yes, please, do let's have the rich tell us how to live our lives. What do we know?

yeah, that's it. When Rosen characterizes the majority of the LGBT community as "one angry person" who wants to "hijack" the movement, he's nice and wonderful and magnanimous. One person disagrees with him, and they're mean.

I could talk about how all that's left is sheer tribalism, how your argument makes no sense, how it's infinitely regressive, etc., but honestly my entire post was about your comment. Thanks for stopping by a proving my point.

Also, the size of the house wasn't pointed out as an attack, but just to show that a dude who makes that kind of money should be able to pay a freelance writer $300. Seriously.

I agree with your summation of the state of mainstream gay publications like The Advocate which could do better given their relative access to funds (none of which, apparently, go down to their writers - so much for the trickle-down theory).

And as for Rosen's delusions about what counts as "gay," it's interesting that the quashing of dissent, when undertaken by teh gayz always gets a free pass. I'm not sure what it would take Rosen, and others like him, to understand that, in fact, there is no homogeneous gay agenda. As readers here and elsewhere know, I'm part of the Against Equality collective which just published our first book, Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage.

http://againstequality.wordpress.com/stuff/against-equality-queer-critiques-of-gay-marriage/

Our featured writers range from John D'Emilio to Eric Stanley to Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore to Kate Bornstein to Kenyon Farrow - enough indication that the opposition to the gay marriage agenda, for one, comes from a wide range of people and backgrounds.

But then Rosen, whose writing is as incoherent as his thinking, if his post is any indication (and, actually, yes, I WOULD want a math teacher to design a playground - makes sense to me, actually) is not likely to grasp such nuances.

But this is the reality borne out of the simplistic mind-set of The Advocate, isn't it - one that liberal straight uncles like Frank Rich like to gobble up whole: If you're not with us, you must be against us. If you're against the mainstream gay agenda, you must be a homophobe. Or some crusty punk who won't mind his table manners in front of company, horrors! How dreadful! People might think we're not all like each other!

I think that this is something that people who haven't actually tried to promote discussion within the community on any issue might not get in the first go-thru. Whatever anyone thinks of Rosen, he's definitely not the best person who could be writing at The Advocate. He's not even in the top 1000. You point out some people on the left, I could point out a few centrists, liberals, and conservatives who'd be better too.

Which is very much the problem I had with that column - he doesn't say anything that makes much sense in it (did he compare Robin McGehee to Hitler? While defending her?) except for "STFU." Every thing, from lawlessness to people's actual experiences, if it doesn't fit that one, very specific narrative, is simply dismissed. Which is even more interesting since the first few paragraphs of the column imply that he's against people dismissing him out of hand.

Fair discussion for me but not for thee, or something.

I see some people turning out to defend him, fine. Love him. I'm sure he's a great person. But, objectively, that was a poorly-written column, and the whole point was to give the middle finger to most of the community. Sorry if some of us took that middle finger the wrong way.

queery blogger | February 4, 2011 4:02 PM

Your complete misreading of Zack's article makes leaving any sort of constructive criticism on your post completely pointless. Maybe if you'd read his article without assuming you already knew what it said, you might learn something.

Feel free to clarify Rosen's point. I'll admit that his writing is very, very muddled and I may have missed his point. I only read the column about three times before I even thought about posting here about it.

Paige Listerud | February 4, 2011 4:08 PM

Oh, dear me, are the liberals complaining about the leftists/progressives again? Are the progressives complaining about the liberals again? *sigh*

Meanwhile, the right lines up to slash Medicare and get rid of Social Security (but leave military funding intact), redefine rape, and recriminalize same-sex activity.

Have fun, y'all.

Hey, Paige,

I'm glad you at least recognise that these are arguments between liberals and leftists/progressives (as opposed to Gay Inc.'s characterisiation of the arguments as being only between them and homophobes). But I also think it helps to remember - rather than dismiss - the fact that these ideological questions do concern some pretty serious matters for many of us.

For instance, on both sides, the recognition of our "family" and "relationships" however we define them or not, does constitute a life-and-death issue (when health care is granted to some and not others, for example). Those involved in the arguments about DADT are also engaged in questions about queers and their complicity in the war machine - and military funding. And so on.

Medicare? Social Security? Definition of rape?

Please, one angry person, quit trying to hijack this movement! The logo says "LGBTQ" at the top, and clearly LGBTQ people don't need abortions, Medicare, or Social Security.

Haha, just kidding.

Brad Bailey | February 4, 2011 4:34 PM

Everything that survives long enough to become an institution-- the Advocate, the HRC, the NAACP, the NOW, Bilerico, political parties, government, marriage, et al-- inevitably becomes a target of the next generation of activists seeking to change the status quo for the better.

For better or worse, this urge is ingrained in our species. It is part of the human experience.

The fact that the gay rights movement has come this far, despite the unblinking onslaught of the Religious Right and our own relentless internal squabbles, is nothing short of miraculous.

It tells me that something greater is in charge of this whole show. Call it God, the the universe unfolding, the Tooth Fairy, pure blind luck or whatever you will.

In the big scheme of things, Zack Rosen vs. Bil Browning/Bilerico is just the gay rights movement going through its natural growing pains.

I'd give you a hug and tell you it'll be alright, Alex, but you live a few thousand miles away and probably look nothing like your photograph.

That pic's been up there for a while, you're right. I don't use gel anymore.

But hug away. And I hope no one takes the message that Rosen and Bil hate each other now - I'm sure they're having a great time in Minnesota freezing.

Paige Listerud | February 4, 2011 5:32 PM

I think that the real value of leftist/progressive queer analysis about LGBTQ issues is to remind assimilationists that with, say, the repeal of DADT, they are not being integrated into the American Dream but into the American Nightmare. However, it does not logically follow through that a leftist queer should be diametrically opposed to repealing DADT. Particularly since DADT never kept queers out of the military anyway--it just persecuted them, denied them access to programs for veterans and set up the conditions in military culture that led to violence against them and even their deaths.

Violence and death that will, no doubt, continue even when LGBTQ have been "allowed in." No one who has struggled for DADT's repeal should think for a moment that the anti-queer carnage is over.

As for the carnage against our "enemies," I haven't met one soldier, back from many tours of duty, who hasn't said our Iraqi/Afghan/Pakistan warmongering isn't a waste. Their consensus seems to be that we shouldn't be over there. And not killing people for oil anymore would be nice, too.

As for queers being complicit in the war machine--you and I may as well look in the mirror. If you've paid your taxes (I know anti-war activists who do not), then you are as complicit, by funding our nation's imperial misadventures, as surely as if you'd run to the local draft office and signed up for duty.

Of course, your taxes and mine have also gone to Medicare, food stamps, etc., and we want a stronger, more comprehensive social safety net. In short, we want our nation to be at peace and we want socialism. Being queer, we want socialism that serves people regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation or marital/family status.

Would it do any good to talk to a LGBTQ American liberal about the need for economic justice? I don't know--I suppose it depends on whether said LGBTQ liberal has been downsized and can't find work due the Great Recession and needs to go on food stamps to live (hey, just like a black welfare mother). Slowly it begins to dawn on LGBT liberal that, hey, these wars we're in are really expensive--not to mention illegal--not to mention killing innocent people for no damn good reason--and food stamps help and maybe social programs are necessary and Wall Street got a bailout, why not me? and . . .

I don't know. It's a teaching moment, the times we're living in right now, and a progressive queer can either keep repeating what they are against in the mainstream LGBTQ agenda or they could talk very seriously about what they are for. I personally would like to see teach-ins about our political economy in every LGBTQ center across the nation. That would be fun.

I'd like to see evidence that anyone who has criticised the DADT repeal movement for its refusal to engage the issue of war has actually ever said, "We're against the repeal." That's simply an inaccurate depiction of the problems we raise.

As for teaching moments, plenty of us are and have been doing that - on our campuses and/or our activist circles. Most, if not all, of the contributors to the Against Equality book on marriage, for instance, have actively worked against the war, against the neoliberal economy - in fact, Gender JUST, a group in Chicago, where you and I both live, actively participates in such critiques and teach-ins. And our critique is in fact an economic critique, not an affective or sexual one.

I'd say it's also a question of paying attention and of discerning where the political and economic critiques are coming from and where. There's a segment of the left that doesn't recognise these critiques unless they come from Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, and the politics of recognition has a lot to do with that.

Rick Sutton | February 4, 2011 6:47 PM

Relax, Yasmin...I suspect Paige is young, and damn, I admire the youthful zest of many GLFT friends. It's invigorating, if naive.

This is an excellent post, Bilerico. I must've misunderstood the original argument though. I thought it was more about Gay Inc. vs newer-GLBT groups, and HRC-think vs. Get Equal flap.

Zack argues that we need to get along. We do seem to pick one another apart with glee. It solves little.

Bil was, I think, trying to poke a little fun at the "established" GBLT groups, while promoting/extolling the virtues of the upstarts. If I'm taking liberties with either line of reasoning, so be it. I'm sure they'll let us know.

Both discussions are healthy, if done respectfully. Bil has history with sharp activist sticks in the eyes of established groups. I read and appreciate Zack most of the time, even when I don't agree.

There's room under our tent for both views.

Please.

And Paige is right: while we wander down the path, Congress is hell-bent on doing some pretty disgusting stuff. We need to keep our eyes on the ball.

I suspect Paige, whom I know, would take exception to your characterisation of her as "young" and "naive." She's actually a seasoned organiser around bi issues. I should add that to be young is not to be naive - I organise across generational lines all the times, and I'm always astonished at how little some of the "activists" who've only just discovered protests around marriage, for example, know about getting people rallying around a cause.

Your comment actually points to the larger problem raised by Alex - an inability to see that, first of all, Bil and Zach aren't necessarily coming at queer politics from different sides. Their differences are not the differences you see or claim.

As I've said before, the "third way" perspective attempted here only dismisses the fact that these ideological questions do concern some pretty serious matters for many of us.

And to clarify - what I meant was that most of the marriage activists - who are not technically "young," are clueless about organising (and sometimes don't want to learn, either). Have you looked at the labour organising world - the majority are people in their early 20s (who then get chewed up and spat out, but that's a different story)?
You must also mean "naive" as in world-view - I'll assume you're including in that the idea that marriage, hate crimes legislation, and the military are solutions to anything.

Rick Sutton | February 6, 2011 3:41 PM

I said I admired her passion. But her remarks are naive. Which is not necessarily the exclusive domain of young people.

And don't think for a moment, that the reaction to Paige's post, comes form someone who's flippant about these issues. There are some serious issues involved. To all of us.

I don't know Paige. I'd like to. She sounds intriguing.

Some who fashion themselves as activist writers are really just attention whores.

Of more concern to me is this business of freelancers not being paid. I am so thankful that I write for a newspaper where the publisher, Norm Kent, reminds me to invoice him when I forget to do it promptly. And he always pays promptly.

Look, the gay activism kitchen is hot. Kitchens are supposed to be hot. If you can't take the heat, well, I guess you can always find a cooler place to sweat out your incomprehensible thinking.

Alex,
Zack's article was obviously kinda muddled. But its central thesis seemed clear to me: that any worthwhile movement must be willing to admit the possibility that embracing a multiplicity of tactics is probably a good idea.

The counterargument you raise: that any effective movement should also make room for healthy debate and autocriticism, is also true.

So a big part of our task is figuring out where the balance between those two poles lies.

Meanwhile Yasmin hijacks the thread to promote her inane book!

I think I'd have more respect for that central thesis if Rosen didn't go around crapping all over other people's tactics.

Which is to say: (auto)criticism isn't something completely separate from tactics. Sometimes criticism is a tactic. And sometimes people in our community aren't just engaged in another tactic, they actually have different agendas and for them criticism of someone else who identifies as L, G, B, or T is the tactic.

For example, someone who disagrees with GOProud's opposition to ENDA might criticize them on a blog. Saying that the folks who criticized GOProud in order to support ENDA should just stop talking, that we have to fight the real enemies and not each other, allow for a multiplicity of tactics and that's what GOProud exemplifies, etc., isn't about making room for autocriticism but about supporting ENDA.

It always pleases me to hear that someone else has read our book. And yes, that's exactly why I commented here - to increase sales!

"I'll go out on a limb and guess that management at The Advocate leans to the right."

What was your 15th clue?

Ah, people with the truth. Big Whoop. Or to paraphrase a James Baldwin quote: "va te faire foutre." (from GIOVANNI'S ROOM)

gg

Chitown Kev | February 5, 2011 6:50 AM

Interesting...

I actually agree with Alex's headline about the Advocate but I did find myself nooding my head several times in reading Rosen's essay.

I wanna go back and read all of this *drama* over again (and the fact that I am calling it "drama" does indicate the level of my cynicism regarding both sides of this argument).

Aubrey Haltom | February 5, 2011 9:30 AM

It's off topic, but I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned Regent Group (Out, The Advocate, etc..) being sued for fraud by B of A/Merrill Lynch.

The claim, apparently, is that the Director of Regent Group (Stephen Jarchow) used his companies to fraudently borrow @ $90 million, and if I'm reading the accusation correctly, basically pocketed large amounts of this money.

Let's state the obvious - innocent until proven guilty, and the accusers aren't the most ethical either - but still...

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | February 5, 2011 12:08 PM

The 29 comments(so far) on this thread should be required reading for all of our non LGBTQ friends who think they would like to be involved in our causes.

At least they will know what they are getting into.

...Because the health care movement, the immigration rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the labour movement, just for starters, are all doing so well and are so seamless and without internal debates?

But of course - those are hardly "straight" movements only (unless you believe Gay Inc. and its supporters).

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | February 5, 2011 7:21 PM

Very fair point, Yasmin. Unfortunately the internicene squabbles within our movement are not unique. It just seems that way sometimes when you wonder who the adversary is.

Randall Reynolds - randallr01 | February 5, 2011 10:01 PM

So many of you Bilerico bloggers are pretentious. It's absurd... Our movement benefits from *all* approaches, including yours, including Zack Rosen's, and including mine.