I'll be starting with a completely unscientific and
possibly offensive observation.
I had heard once that the percentage of the
population that identifies as queer (and at the time it was "gay",
but I think "queer" works better here) was ten percent. The last data
I saw estimated it was closer to four percent, but I had ten in mind for a long
time. However, among professional entertainers - especially dancers and figure
skaters - that percentage seemed much higher, with maybe as many as fifty
percent among the men. However yet again, that did not seem to be the case with
the Russians, where there were many more straight men performing.
Other things I have read don't really indicate that
Russian society is more accepting of homosexuality, so I didn't think that was
the reason. It does seem possible that the Russian concept of masculinity is
better at including artistic expression. Honestly, that doesn't require being
that open-minded, because there is a lot of strength and athleticism involved
in those pursuits.
My point in even mentioning this is that it seems
likely that the demands of masculinity - at least in US culture - can
discourage many boys from pursuing various artistic paths. There are probably many
who could have been really great, and it would have been satisfying for them
and edifying for the people who got to see them perform, but the possibilities
get discarded, because it's for sissies.
This is where I write about Suzanne Pharr's Homophobia:
A Weapon of Sexism.
A couple of things stood out early. Part of her
early work was with domestic violence. Many of the battered women had been
called "lesbians" by their batterers. Often they were not lesbians,
but the term was used to justify the beatings.
Pharr started giving workshops on homophobia for both straight and lesbian
women, and it was energizing for all of them. She asked them to visualize what
the world would be like without homophobia, and it was huge for them. Part of
that is that when you are surrounded by domestic crisis, so much time is spent
in responding to damage that you don't get to spend a lot of time on vision.
And a big part of it was just imagining taking away those restraints.
By imagining a world without homophobia, they were
able to envision a world where children won't be labeled, or pushed into one
direction or another. That would free children up to realize their potential.
They imagined a world where people could be more affectionate - not just with
partners, but with all kinds of relationships because you don't have to worry
about it being misconstrued and getting you harmfully labeled. Women will be
able to work any job without being called masculine. There will be less
violence because men will not need to prove their manhood. People will be able
to wear whatever they want.
That's one thing that people often seem to miss
about social justice work. Feminism makes things better for men. Anti-racism
work succeeding makes a better world for white people. Eliminating homophobia
makes a better world for straight people. As important as it is to realize that
marginalized people suffer more, the bigotry isn't good for anyone.
Some of my favorite male dancers have been straight,
so going back to the opening, I have to admire them for persisting. I am sure there
was name-calling and mockery, but they had gifts, and they developed them and
shared them. That is great, and art is important.
Think about it beyond that. What do we lose by
putting up barriers? Which mind that could have figured out a new technique for
fighting cancer, or harnessing solar for cars, or cleaning up the oceans, was
discouraged and discarded? If we weren't so consistently comfortable with
marginalizing other people, pollution and disease wouldn't be allowed to take
the toll they have even without new technologies.
If we want a better world, it will start with
valuing each other. Each and every other one.