The Minority of Privilege

I've struggled with writing this post, primarily because of the political climate that exists around things of the nature I wish to speak about.  I fully expect to offend someone ... so let me preface by saying that it was my being offended that encouraged this post, along with the offense of others in Montreal, residents of Montreal, whose opinion became clear when I commented on the matter.

I'm going to say some not so nice things about some gay men ... so feel free to skip this post, if this isn't something you can stand to hear.  I'll stress first off that not all gay men are the same; that would be ridiculous.  We take it as a given where social groups are concerned that they ALL have the same agendas, the same belief systems, the same approaches to life, the same wants, the same needs and whatever else that helps sell the political pundit's bullshit goal of raising money for a cause or threatening politicians when it comes time to vote.  No human being is the same as another; not every member of a "group" acts the same.  So when I say "some" ... that is what I gawddamned mean.  The opinions I have to remark upon were supported by gay acquaintances I made in Montreal, through friends I have in the city.

Further, let me express my own credentials, to provide some context for my opinions here.  In 1996, I worked for a year in a highly prestigious restaurant in Calgary, Victoria's, that was jointly owned by the Olympic Swimmer Mark Tewksbury and one other, whom I shall not name.  Victoria's had slipped to a four-star restaurant when I worked there (it's gone today), because the building had settled and was simply old.  I worked with several excellent chefs and expanded my education considerably as a gastronomist.

Victoria's was part of a large building block that included five individual restaurants and a theatre, all of which could be accessed internally with tunnels and stairwells; all were owned jointly by Tewksbury and Co. All were extremely — and there is no other word for it — gay.  Gay in the way that Paris in the 1930s was gay.  That is to say, criminally gay.  Tewksbury was a national hero and the Other owner was rich beyond measure ... and together they ran "Detours," as the building was called, like a small empire.  The enclosed alleyway that ran behind the building was part of the empire, including places where male prostitutes could work in the open, where cocaine and heroine could be dealt freely and openly and where ... if the cops appeared ... it was because they were also gay, and also interested in buying cocaine.  Beneath Detours were bathhouses, where further gay activities took place, which I shall not speak of here.  Rest assured, you may let your imaginations run to the deepest excesses, and feel certain those were practiced there.

In short, I write like this, with my hardened edges, from a life experiencing some of the less savoury things in this world.  As I said, I was there for a year.  I closed my eyes to what was going on; I accepted the homosexuals I worked with, and they accepted me, the only male hetero employed there.  The fellow I worked for, Victoria's kitchen manager, Edward, spent his Saturday and Sunday nights as a drag queen on the Detours stage ... and had some fame through the city and Western Canada as "Cricket."  When I worked with "him" in the kitchen, he was a he; and when I met "her" in the halls, she was a she.  That is how pronouns worked then.

So, I am not ignorant about the gay male lifestyle; nor am I entirely non-judgmental ... for, as I say, I saw things.  I saw heartache, and pain, and the after-effects of abuse against gay men.  As a hetero, who has the slightest of bi-leanings, I feel I can speak to the experience.

This is partly how Tamara and I, on our first day in Montreal, chose to look over "The Village" here.  A friend in Calgary had always spoke positively about it, but he had left it six years ago.  The Village is an area adjacent to the University of Quebec which has become a recluse for the homosexual community.  We were there on a Thursday afternoon, about three p.m. ... where we found it somewhat, um, disappointing.  There is some decoration, the usual excesses, especially the rainbow flag, emblem of inclusivity.  Unfortunately, however, the neighbourhood is anything but inclusive.

It has become, to put it coldly, a refuge for socially embittered gay men who have chosen to embrace a lifestyle of drugs and other forms of self-abuse, emboldened and blatant sexuality, refuse, slum conditions and quite a lot of unfriendliness.  We didn't need to be there long to witness the last being practiced by the residents.

We could argue that much of this is forced on the people there, and I don't doubt that IS argue.d.  I don't intend to comment on the social dynamic, though while we've been in Montreal, whenever we've said that we entered the Village, comments on the social dynamic have been offered generously.  I'd only like to comment on the single pervasive image that could be seen everywhere, prolifically, often in forms that were up to 18 ft. high.  There was an iconic version, but this will do to express the image:

This is not inclusive.  Repeated excessively, it's visually and contextually ugly ... particularly presented next to a rainbow flag that's supposed to represent lesbians and questioning persons.  And that connection, between the image above and the flag is constant.  Whatever denigration that's perpetrated upon a community, there's little to explain or justify this particular atrocity being perpetrated upon a select group of overtly sexualized homosexual men upon every group on the rainbow flag, including other gay men.

Yet, of course, there's no solution.  The gay political agenda has no strategy for one group of gay males opposing other gay males for the "rights" that any subset may embrace.  The revulsion I heard expressed by openly gay professional males, with families, leading respectable lives, whose characters are thrown together with that of those males hoisting the naked male torso as their flag of choice is impossible to reconcile with the political rhetoric we hear expressed every day on the news, as gays struggle to protect their rights.  It's offensive.  It's abusive of other people.  And it's free to continue because the third flag that's waved next to the male torso and the rainbow is the one that reads, "You can do nothing to us that won't be named 'persecution' "  

It's a point that isn't being discussed, because no one, of any stripe, is allowed to discuss it.  Even as I write this, I risk earning the worst sort of hate, because I've expressed something that has offended MANY people.  Hate that will be justified because I've offended them.

Seems to me, there comes a time when being "offended" must cease to be a privilege held cruelly over other people.

P.S.,

I leave Montreal tonight.