Silver Demon: In the Name of Science

This past week, the curiosity mars rover landed on the surface of the red planet. A proud moment in science to be sure. Given that this was also at the height of the Chick-Fil-A madness, a meme quickly followed that went like this:

Dear Religion,
While you were busy debating which chicken sandwiches were okay to eat, I landed a rover on mars.
Sincerely,
Your pal science.

This got a chuckle from me. However, perhaps this also is a good time as any to point out that science is not always a pure light into the darkness.

Hubertus Strughold is considered to by the father of space medicine and went to work for NASA following WWII. Dr. Strughold also once held a post at the NAZI Concentration Camp of Dachue. The experiments that Dr. Strughold were connected to involved placing concentration camp inmates in low pressure chambers, forced consumption of seawater, exposure to extremely low temperatures and submersion in freezing waters. These experiments are believed to have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of prisoners.

Dear Religion,
I shot for the moon by murdering the weak. Your Spanish Inquisition was nothing. Envious yet?
Sincerely,
Your Pal Science.

Following World War II, Operation Paperclip went into effect. In a desperate bid to stay ahead of the Soviets during the Cold War, the United States aided numerous German and Japanese scientists in obtaining clemency and U.S. citizenship in exchange for the knowledge they had obtained from experiments that could easily be classified as war crimes. Or as it might also be said, crimes against humanity.

Dear Religion,
While you were busy persecuting those of different faiths, I exploited that bigotry for cannon fodder.
Thank you,
Your Pal Science.

A full accounting of the horrors of the medical experimentation that was conducted during The Shoah would be impossible. The NAZI's did tests to discover the effects of frostbite, hypothermia, malaria, mustard gas, dehydration, the transplantation of tissues, and more.

Under the NAZI regime, gay men and women were also persecuted and imprisoned in concentration camps. Experiments on gay men imprisoned at Buchenwald, undertaken by Dr. Carl Peter Vaernet, were attempted in order to find out if it was possible to use hormones to make gay men straight. If he were alive today, one wonders how readily Dr. Vaernet would fit in with the ex-gay movement.

While castration was only rumored to have been done to the pink triangle prisoners, the British actually went ahead and chemically castrated Alan Turing, who was instrumental in the defeat of the NAZI's, for the grand old crime of being gay. As a result of this hormone treatment, Alan Turing committed suicide by eating a poisoned apple.

Alan Turing, in addition to helping defeat the NAZI's during WWII, is considered the father of modern computer science and the person whom you should be thanking for the computer you are reading this article on.

Dear Religion,
While you were busy persucuting the homos, I've been busy developing the tools that let you do so.
You're welcome,
Your Pal Science.

The history of medical experimentation in the United States has been as equally horrific as that which occured in NAZI Germany. Children, the disabled, the poor, the homeless, prisoners, and military personnel have been among the most commonly used subjects. Prior to the Civil War, expirementation on slaves was a widely accepted practice.

History is easily forgotten and when it comes to queer history, our community has been faced with a particularly virulent purge of anything that could possibly be construed as rainbow tinted.

This has been one of the main reasons I have been motivated to do the work that I have done on my novel Silver Demon. The subject of medical experimentation, particularly the tests that were conducted during The Holocaust, is one that will feature heavily.

Nobody wants to remember the dirty and grimy parts of history, only the roles we played as heroes. I cannot count myself as an exception to this. Frequently, I find myself wanting to bury my head in the sand, only to discover that there is no sand, only the ashes of the innocent.

Queer Review: Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

Suddenly, Last Summer
Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Writer: Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal. Based upon a play by Tennessee Williams.
Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Katharine Hepburn, Montgomery Clift, Albert Dekker, Mercedes McCambridge, Gary Raymond

Overview
An ugly mess. In spite of being written by two prominent gay writers (Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams) Suddenly, Last Summer somehow manages to include almost every last queer bashing technique ever dreamed up by Hollywood.

Synopsis
Dr. Cukrowicz (Montgomery Clift) is asked by Mrs. Violet Venable (Katharine Hepburn) to perform a lobotomy on her niece, Catherine Holly (Elizabeth Taylor). However, when Dr. Cukrowicz interviews Catherine, he suspects that she is in fact perfectly sane, albeit severely traumatized by mysterious events surrounding the death the previous summer of Sebastian (Mrs. Venables' son). He also suspects that Mrs. Venable has an ulterior motive for wanting Catherine lobotomized.

The Queering
(This is an older film but I plan on discussing explicit details of the ending. For those who hate SPOILERS, you are now warned.)

If there is a gay bashing trope used by Hollywood that Suddenly, Last Summer does not somehow use, I am unaware of its' existence. The relationship details that Mrs. Venable shares with Dr. Cukrowicz show she and her son had a creepy, bordering on incestuous, relationship. Mrs. Venable also describes her son as being "fastidious" and other details reveal him to have been what could be described as a "nancy boy" (not that I think there is anything wrong with that). Catherine also, apparently justifiably, describes Sebastian as being an emotionally manipulative user.

For added bonus, Sebastian is suggested to not only have been an active pedophile, but the ending reveals that he was eaten alive by the same boys that he had preyed upon sexually. Yay!

How two gay writers were able to create such a homophobic crapfest is a little difficult to explain but not entirely. After all, 1959 was the same era that had the Mattachine Society attempting to argue that gay men were in fact mentally ill and that criminalizing homosexuality was pretty much the same thing as outlawing wheelchairs.

Suddenly, Last Summer is flawed in other ways besides being homophobic. The characterization of Catherine Holly is just awful. Catherine should be demonstrating symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but more frequently simply displays an amalgamation of Hollywood stereotypes about the mentally ill. To top it off, both Catherine's mother and brother are among the more irritating characters that I can recall having witnessed on the silver screen. Both ma and bro Holly suffer from what I shall call "Jar Jar Binks Meets Nails on Chalkboard" syndrome.

On the plus side of things, Katherine Hepburn gives a riveting performance as the Mrs. Venable. There is also some nicely composed cinematography. Make note of how a painting of Saint Sebastian is shown before being explicitly referenced by Mrs. Venable. I would also like to point out that there are several intriguing shots of skeletons (or statues of skeletons) which may or may not be intended as simple metaphors for death.

Unfortunately one good performance, a few nicely composed shots, and a couple of stabs at complex visual symbolism are not enough to undo the overall awfulness that is Suddenly, Last Summer

Recommendation
Only for those with a strong interest in the history of queer cinema. Everyone else would best serve themselves by suddenly seeing something else, be it summer or any other season.

The Rating
*1/2 out of ****

Trailer


Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.

On Censorship, Rape Culture, and the New Comments Policy.

Generally speaking, I tend to like to pretend that there is no topic too offensive that it could not be discussed by reasonable adults. Censorship is evil I tell you! EVIL!

There are of course moments when reality hits and I find myself forcing to take a hard look at my positions on free speech. A few days ago was one such day.

It came when I found a comment on the post Gore Vidal, Rape Apologist that basically defended Vidals' statements. Among other lovely little dripplings, the comment included the sentiment that somehow determining whether or not a rape victim was a virgin at the time they were sexually assaulted was somehow relevant.

Yeah, I too hate it when I've been conned into thinking this is now the 21st century.

In any case, I deleted the comment. I realize that I have now invited scores of people to decry my position as hypocritical. So be it. If someone out there wants to start a blog and pontificate about how morally upright rapists are, and how their slutty victims were asking for it, go ahead. But I will not allow such poison on Queering the Closet.

For the record, I have now updated the About page to include a section outlining the new commenting policy.

Politifact: Bad at Politics and Not So Good With Facts Either

Mitt Romney, as it has been widely reported, has not released his tax returns. Speculation as to why he is breaking a tradition his own father started, has almost become an Olympic sport unto itself. One of the more commonly floated theories is that Romney paid little to no taxes for the past decade.

On July 31st, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an interview with the Huffington Post, claimed that a reliable, albeit anonymous, source had told him that Romney had indeed paid no taxes for the past 10 years.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. Politifact, a site for which I have previously pointed out, has in the past demonstrated an unfortunate inability to distinguish between fact and opinion, took it upon themselves to label Harry Reid's claim Pants on Fire.

Basically Polifacts' reasoning for this label boils down to speculation on the part of tax experts who say that it would have been extremely difficult for Romney not to have paid taxes. Otherwise, this issue remains Reids' word against Romneys'.

So why is Politifact not giving Romney a Pants on Fire rating either? After all, Romney could very easily prove Reid wrong by, you know, doing what pretty much every Presidential candidate has done for decades and simply release his tax returns.

In short, if Romney could prove Reid is in fact a liar, why should Politifact take his side? It is after all easier to imagine reasons why anonymous source would want to remain anonymous (particularly if they do indeed work for Bain Capitol as Reid claims) then it is to imagine why a presidential hopeful would refuse to follow tradition and release his tax returns. For example, I do not think that it is out of the realm of speculation (cough) to assume that there is a substantial chance that Reids' source might get fired for making such sensitive information public.

Then there is the issue of Polifact describing Reids' anonymous source as "shadowy". Really Politifact? What is your evidence for that? Is it now common journalistic practice to label all anonymous sources as "shadowy"? Do know why the term "weasel word" was developed? Is there any possible reason to include such a label, outside of oh say, if one were deliberately attempting to create a partisan smear?

Which brings me to my next issue. Why even bother rating for Reids' claim in the first place? Does Politifact really think that most people do not know what the term "anonymous" means? This is not an issue in which the particulars are not well known to the public.

So what exactly makes a ruling so desperately necessary? If, as Politifact claims, their standards dictate they must hold Reid accountable, why are they not also holding Romney accountable? Why is speculation considered a deciding factor but not an anonymous source?

If Politifact really is all about helping people find the truth in American politics, why bother reporting on an issue in which the details are already well known? Their article and justifications bring no significantly new angle to the table. Speculation at this point is only just that, speculation. The pondering of experts is worth considering, but I fail to see how they constitute substantial evidence in this case.

The truth of the matter is that unless Reids' source decides to go public or Romney decides to release his tax returns, the actual facts are unknowable. Which makes Politifacts posturing about Reids' pants being on fire, all the more galling. By pretending this is an issue in which the truth can be determined, Politifact has instead created a lie of the highest order.

Silver Demon: Riddle Me This.

So, in any case, I've been working on a novel for, well, some time now. The title that I have (for right now) is Silver Demon and I would classify it as falling within the queer superhero genre.

Now, while doing research for Silver Demon, I happen to keep coming across little tidbits and things that I want to either share publicly or comment on, but up until now, have not bothered to do so. Which is why I'm making this post.

There is a scene in the story where one of the characters ends up being tested and has to answer several riddles in order to proceed. Naturally, I did some research to look for inspiration for riddles to use in this scene.

One riddle that I kept coming across goes as follows:
A man and his son are out driving when they are in a terrible car accident and both the father* and son are horribly injured. Both end up being rushed to different hospitals. When the Doctor at the E.R. sees the son, she turns and says, "I cannot treat this son, he is my son."
*Some versions have the father being killed instead of injured.

Naturally the answer that is always given is that the Doctor in question happens to the patients' mom. Ha, ha, didn't think of that you sexist misogynistic pigs!

The thing is, generally speaking, that riddles are supposed to have "tricks" to them. That is, the answers are not supposed to be obvious, otherwise they would not be riddles. The trick to this riddle is that people (apparently) do not generally consider the possibility that women can be doctors.

That issue aside however, there are a couple of points I want to raise about this riddle. We know the current gender of one parent. We know nothing about the gender of the other parent. This of course leaves open several possibilities. The son is being raised by a gay couple and therefore has two fathers or the doctor is transgender, intersex, or gender queer, or more generally falls outside the gender binary.

In any case. the point remains the same, the riddle is set up so as to mock sexism but merely ends up also reinforcing heternormativity.

A better joke in the same vein - for which the punchline is now ruined (sorry!) - is as follows:

There is a terrible car accident in which it is obvious that one of the occupants is badly injured. A man and a woman rush up to the car and arrive almost at the same time. The man roughly shoves the woman aside, saying, "Excuse me lady, I know first aid."

The woman steps back for a few moments, then walks up to the man and says to him, "when you get to the part about calling a doctor, I'm right here."

Otsego County Pflag: PFlag National Statement on Chick-Fil-A

Otsego County Pflag: PFlag National Statement on Chick-Fil-A: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 3, 2012 Contact: Liz Owen | lowen@pflag.org> | (202) 467-8180 ext. 214 PFLAG NATIONAL RESPONDS TO CHICK-FIL...

Gore Vidal, Rape Apologist.

For those who were unaware, Gore Vidal, American author, and stringent anti-imperialist passed away this week.

I will admit to having been a little upset about the news when I first heard it. Vidal after all was an extremely quotable writer. I found the following quote from him to be particularly incisive:

At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice.

However, that quote took on a decidedly ironic overtone, when I came across the following statement that Vidal had made in an interview with The Atlantic (published in 2009) in response to the question the interviewer had asked regarding Roman Polanski raping a 13 year year old girl:

I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

Honestly, I am not sure where to begin on this one. The facts of what Mr. Polanski had done were well established at the time of this interview.

First off, the individual in question was 13 years old at the time of the incident. A little young to be engaging in sex work, one might think.

Second, I must have forgotten to read the memo that says that sex workers give up their right to refuse consent when they are working.

Third, the thirteen year old victim was drugged by Polanski before he raped her. The victim was with Polanski, as Polanski had promised her mother that she (the victim) would be photographed for an edition of Vogue. Which is another memo I must have lost, the one that argues that getting photographed for a non-pornographic magazine is the equivalent of engaging in sex work.

What makes Vidal's defending Polanski so reprehensible is that Vidal makes it very clear that this comment was not simply off the cuff, he genuinely believes in what is saying.

As the interview in question proceeds, Vidal goes on to claim that Polanski's persecution was motivated by antisemitism and had nothing to do with, you know, Polanski raping a 13 year old.

I am reminded here, of when I doing research on Harry Hay and finding out that he had, at one point defended NAMBLA (North Atlantic Man Boy Love Association) an organization that essentially promotes pedophilia. And while doing research for this article I found out that Allen Ginsberg had also defended the organization.

It seems as if you can't knock too hard on the door of anybody's closet, without knocking out a skeleton or two. There is a line between defending sexual activity between consenting adults and defending sexual activity with those too young to give consent. Too bad there are pro-queer activists who were unable to make that distinction.

I am also reminded here of the response to the Sandusky scandal at Penn State and the revelation that many members of the Penn State elite -- such as Joe Paterno -- had covered up for Sandusky. Consider also, the cover ups that occurred within the Catholic Church over numerous incidents of sexual assault by priests against children.

Coming back to Vidal, it is worth noting that he was not the only celebrity who had defended Polanski. Over a hundred of Hollywood's elite signed a petition to demand the release of Polanski following his arrest in Switzerland while he was traveling to a film festiveal.

It seems that as a species, few of us are immune to the desire to stick our head in the sand and ignore any problem that is shoved in front of our faces. But a problem cannot be solved through ignorance, nor by blaming the victims.

While Gore Vidal may have been a talented and progressive author (he did after all write one of the first major pro-queer novels in the United States) I cannot defend, his slut-shaming, rape defending, comment. Nor do I think it should be dismissed. By claiming that a 13 year old, who had been drugged and raped by a man in his 40's, was a "hooker" who had simply felt she had been taken advantage of, Gore Vidal committed a sin too ugly for description.