Kevin Broccoli's Open Salon Blog

Attention is the New Currency

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:02:16 -0500

Last week seemed to feature a victory over ignorance, when JCPenny refused to fire Ellen Degeneres as their spokesperson because a group called One Million Moms threatened to boycott JCPenny because Ellen is an out-and-proud lesbian.

People were outraged. Apparently, there are a lot of homosexuals you can go after, but Ellen is the Lucille Ball of lesbian television hosts--she's untouchable.

Even Bill O'Reilly came out in her defense, saying that One Million Moms was trying to bring back McCarthyism.

But all seemed well once JCPenny stood by Ellen. The evil One Million Moms seemed vanquished.

Or were they?

What a lot of people made fun of is that One Million Moms is actually only made up of about forty thousand people. That's still an awful lot of ignorance, but not nearly as much as their name would suggest.

What a lot of people didn't point out is that by even acknowledging this fringe group, the media was giving them power.

When Rush Limbaugh challenged the President to a debate years ago, people balked at the audacity of his suggestion.

Why?

Because the President debating with Limbaugh would only help Limbaugh. Even if the President intellectually decimated him, he'd be giving Limbaugh a very big platform.

That's what happened with One Million Moms last week--they received the gift of attention.

I realize all I'm doing is bringing up the old cliche that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but lately, that statement's grown weightier.

I'd say attention has become the new currency.

It seems like everyone who would normally only get fifteen minutes of fame, spends the first fifteen minutes getting made fun of and then uses that fifteen minutes to justify getting entire careers where they're taken seriously.

And even if they're not, they're still able to make money or make an impact simply because they're given an audience.

The fact is that the public puts credence in fame. It seems that the thinking goes: If you're famous, you must be famous for a reason, and subsequently, you should be listened to.

That little fringe group of forty thousand extremists must be growing larger as a result of all this press. While it's nice that O'Reilly came to Ellen's defense, chances are that a lot of people watching Fox News will not agree with him on this particular point, and will instead, go check out what One Million Moms is all about.

It's a tactic many people in the entertainment industry know very well.

Just this weekend, Nikki Minaj performed at the Grammy's using religion to incite discussion. And what happened?

It incited discussion.

I'm always so surprised that people and the media are so easily manipulated. Then again, here I am talking about the issue as well--giving it attention.

Maybe what we all need to do is give groups like this a little dose of apathy.

That might be the only way to bankrupt them.

Can You Choose to Be Gay?

Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:02:14 -0500

Cynthia Nixon recently got everybody in an uproar when she announced that she has chosen to be gay.

In other words, she's been with men and when she was with them, she was straight, and now she's with a woman, and she's gay.

I tried to find out if Anne Heche has weighed in on this, but so far, no luck.

The big problem with introducing the word "choice" into a discussion about sexuality is that it then seems to lend credence to the idea that ALL gay people are choosing to be gay.

When, in fact, what's really happening, is that Cynthia Nixon is crazy.

Oh, please don't me wrong. I thoroughly enjoy her as an actress, and she seems like a lovely woman, but to think that you can label yourself whatever you want--

Well, I guess you can.

The issue is whether or not you can get other people to honor what it is you're labeling yourself.

For example, I could label myself a turtle. Would other people regard me as a turtle? Would I be oohed over and put in a tank in an aquarium somewhere?

Hopefully (and probably) not.

But sure, if I want to call myself that, why not?

Cynthia Nixon doesn't like the term "bisexual" and so she says she's gay, and says that she's choosing to be so. Perhaps her sexuality comes with a "Gay/Straight" switch that the rest of us just don't have.

Stranger things have happened.

I don't see what she's saying as a threat to the gay community, because technically, it could be a threat to both communities.

If gay people can choose to be gay, then that means straight people can choose to be straight.

Basically, we're all threatened by Cynthia Nixon.

She's a sexual terrorist, and she must be stopped.

(Just kidding.)

I say, let her call herself whatever she wants, and let her personal life stay personal. Only she can know what's going on inside her head and her bed, and, being an absolutely fantastic actress, it only stands to reason that every once in awhile she's going to say something that's completely outlandish--it comes with the territory.

Perhaps the rest of us should choose to focus on other issues.

Gays, "Comfort," and Theater

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:50 -0500

Right now, I'm in a play with naked men.

I should rephrase that.

I'm in a play that features nudity (not my own) and a bunch of guys showering.

Homosexuality also plays a part in the script, but it's not directly connected to the nudity.

These are two things you need to know.

For awhile, when I told people about the show I was doing--and by people, I mean straight guys--I would get this response:

"Yeah, I read that script. I'm not sure I would have been comfortable with that."

At first, I thought they meant the nudity, and that's understandable. Not everybody is comfortable with that onstage.

Then, however, I would say--"Oh the nudity?"

And they'd say--"No, just...some of the other stuff. I'd be uncomfortable."

At first I thought, Do they mean the homosexuality?

And then I shot that idea down.

I mean, there's no actual sex in the show.

There aren't guys kissing or making out or even touching, really.

Not that it'd be okay for these guys to have a problem with that if it WAS in the script. I mean, after all, yes these are straight guys, but they're also actors.

Do you have any idea how many girls I've had to kiss onstage?

So I shot the idea down.

But then I picked it back up again, when I actually was told by one of the guys--

"The homosexuality isn't something I'm comfortable dealing with onstage."

Now, here's something I've noticed.

People seem to think by saying they're not "comfortable" with something, it automatically gives them a get out of jail free card.

What I mean by that is, it's not okay to be homophobic in today's society, but it's okay to say you're not "comfortable" with homosexuality--even though it's the exact same thing.

Imagine someone saying--"I don't have a problem with African-Americans, I'm just not comfortable being around them."

Both parts of that statement sound racist, right?

Yes. Yes, they do. Because they are.

I resent the word "comfort" being thrown around with regards to straight men and their mildly suppressed homophobia, not because it's, you know, homophobia, but because it's something that really ticks me off.

A word being used to describe something it isn't.

Look, there are lots of things I'm not comfortable with onstage. I'm not comfortable with singing, dancing, stage combat, juggling, or working with children under the age of ten.

But if the play calls for it, I do it. It doesn't matter if I'm comfortable with it or not. Hell, nothing about theater should be comfortable. You're in front of groups of people playing a character and doing who knows what else. It's uncomfortable, but it's rewarding.

Most actors, including, I think, most of these straight guys, understand that and are okay with it. But when they need a reason why they can't do something because they object to it for an embarrassing reason (aka their own prejudices) they use the word "comfort."

When comfort has nothing to do with it.

Or maybe it does, but the fact is, that is NOT a get out of jail free card.

If you're uncomfortable playing a gay man or being in a play that deals with homosexuality, and it's a good play and/or a great role, you deal with it. Because you're an artist. Because you make art. Because prejudice and bigotry and homophobia and ignorance have no place in an artistic community.

I've seen people trip over themselves to play killers or nutjobs or sadists, but playing a homosexual makes them uncomfortable?

Well, that's unacceptable.

I know nowadays we're supposed to be nice, especially when it comes to actors, but I'm not being nice.

It's unacceptable.

As an actor, you should embrace things that make you uncomfortable. You should try to use those things to enlighten you--to make you a better and more open-minded person.

And most of all, you should be ashamed of whatever prejudices you have, and be working on them--not dressing them up with the word "uncomfortable" and thinking that's somehow okay.

It's not.

Unless you want to stop referring to yourself as an actor altogether, in which case--

Be my guest.

"Nice" and "Polite"

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:01:03 -0500

I often run into this situation with strangers--mostly in a professional context.

I'm polite.
The other person says or does something stupid.
I'm no longer polite.

People are always surprised when they're rude only to find that I'm going to be rude right back.

Usually their response is--

"You're not very polite."

But you see, they're wrong.

I just happen to know the difference between "nice" and "polite."

"Nice" is what my friends and family get (of course, if you ask my friends and family...)

"Nice" is not conditional. I am nice to the people I care about, because I care about them and they've earned me being nice to them.

"Polite" is what everybody else gets. "Polite" is a much more fragile state than "nice" is. Whereas if my mother was having a bad day and said something rude to me, I would remain nice and deal with the situation; if a stranger is rude to me, they're going to find that I stop being polite almost immediately.

I don't believe this makes me a mean person. I see no reason why I should treat someone I barely know who's being rude to me the same way I treat someone I care about.

When it comes to work, I'm very conscious that I have a job to do. I balk at people who say that "nice" should be your default mood. That's simply ridiculous. Most jobs need to be more about people actually doing their jobs, not just smiling at you while they tell you how they're ill-equipped, poorly trained, and almost completely incompetent.

I'm competent.
I'm capable.
And I'm polite.

Most people get paid to do a job, not to be "nice" or "polite." And yet, it's expected of them anyway. In fact, they're expected to be polite even when being treated like garbage.

I'm not sure how you put a price tag on being screamed at by some irritable housewife because you won't let her return the sundress she purchased, wore, and stained (just to use a random example).

To me, saying you get paid to deal with things like that is like saying you get paid to have someone drop an anvil on your head.

It's not something that should be part of a job description.

Only being able to do the job should.

Am I nice?

No, not all the time.

But I always get the job done.

So I ask you--

What's more important?

The Atheist Doesn't Mind

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:01:54 -0500

Recently, a prayer banner was taken down at a local high school in the state where I live. The girl who wanted it removed is an atheist, and invoked separation of church and state. Obviously this set a lot of people off. Rhode Island is a very religious state, which is the reason we've had so much trouble getting people on the same page about gay marriage, whereas in neighboring Massachusetts, there's been much more progress.

Every time I hear about a skirmish over religion, especially regarding separation of church and state, I always feel odd. Part of me thinks I should jump in the midst of the fight and defend my atheist brethren. The other part of me thinks, "Gee, why didn't they just leave well enough alone?"

The truth is--when it comes to church and state--I don't mind.

By which I mean, I don't mind that the separation is, let's face it, non-existent. The white elephant in the room is that our Founding Fathers were obviously hypocrites and religious extremists (blame historical circumstances, I'm not trying to take potshots at Jefferson) so when they set up that separation they left a lot of contradictions behind. The word "God" is everywhere--money, pledges, fast food joints, etc.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers meant separation of church and state to be a sort of "Don't talk about home at work" kind of thing. I'm sure they never anticipated that vast landscape that would one day become American spirituality.

When I say I don't mind that the separation doesn't exist, I don't mean that I'm happy about it. I wish it did exist, but it doesn't, and so I don't think about it all that much. I certainly don't bother invoking it unless religion is being thrust in my face. It seems to me most moderate religious followers of any belief system find bombastic proselytizing to be distasteful. (Why else would Tim Tebow be getting so much flack?)

I haven't been a lifelong atheist. It's something that I've adopted fairly recently, in fact. And when I did, it was something like coming out of the closet all over again. I accepted the fact that not everybody was going to take to it, and that I was going to face prejudice and ignorance. I had to keep reminding myself that my beliefs, just like my sexuality, is personal. I had to remember that I'm in a minority.

That doesn't mean I allow myself to be pushed around, it just means knowing when to fight your battles.

A prayer banner?

I probably wouldn't have fought that battle.

Battles like that do for atheists what fighting Eminem did for GLAAD when they went after him as a homophobe, clearly not understanding him at all. It made GLAAD look stringent, as if they took themselves too seriously and didn't understand art (two things, which, if you're gay, should never apply).

Now atheists seem the same way whenever they go after Christmas displays or the pledge of allegiance.

They're just not fights I want to have.

Maybe it's because, for me, religion is like a relationship that just didn't work out. It doesn't mean I don't love the person I used to date or wish them well, it just means that it wasn't for me. I do believe that most religions, at their core, mean well and promote kindness and generosity. The problem is they've become so warped that more and more people are fleeing towards something that even I, as an atheist, find disheartening--despair.

Being an atheist doesn't mean I don't see the good in people, or the beauty of art, or the fascinating cosmic threads that connect all of us as human beings. It just means I don't accept the idea of god or heaven or hell or--

Well, you get the picture.

I have a belief system. Organized religion just isn't a part of it.

Still, anything that promotes positive energy in the world is not something I'm going to take issue with. I tell everyone that when I did go to church, my favorite part of mass was shaking people's hands and saying "peace be with you." It was such a pure gesture, and to be honest, it's what I miss when I think about going to church. I wish I could do it in a secular way. Just walk up to people on the street and say "Peace be with you." It really is a lovely idea.

So no, I don't mind religion. I mind nutjobs, and extremists, and Bible beaters, and anyone who promotes hate and intolerance.

But religion I can live with. I doubt I'll ever practice it again, but it doesn't bother me that it exists.

As for bellowing about church and state, I'll do it if I feel compelled, but honestly, do we really need any extra arguments in the world?