Why I Hate Gwyneth Paltrow

Most people don't like Gwyneth Paltrow because she's had a life of ease. It's jealousy, pure and simple. But I have some more or less legitimate reasons to dislike the girl, and they have nothing to do with her fame, money or Coldplay's Chris Martin.

1. Pepper Potts (Iron Man series) - either the character is devoid of redeeming value or she is. I'm tending to think it's Paltrow.

2. Viola De Lesseps (Shakespeare in Love) - this horrible film basically throws the lie in my face that Shakespeare wasn't gay; this is the Shakespeare who wrote a bunch of lovely sonnets about a boy or two (Sonnet 18). And by the way, what a horrible film except for Dame Judi Dench. No way did Paltrow deserve an Oscar. At least it defeated my other un-favorite film and actor that year: Saving Private Ryan and Tom Hanks (what was with that super fake trembling hand routine?!).

3. Marge Sherwood (The Talented Mr Ripley) - Paltrow plays Dickie Greenleaf's somewhat snobby girlfriend and actually does such a great job that I hate her for it (perhaps it was easy because she was just playing herself). Marge strongly suspects that Ripley killed Dickie, and even escapes Tom's improvised plan to kill her. (Of course, I was cheering for Tom the whole way.) She is for obvious reasons unable to convince Dickie's father of her suspicions.

4. I'm sorry, can't she remedy the nasal voice?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Violator Rewards

Some rich gay folks should fund a don't ask, don't tell bounce back fund. If someone is discharged from military service for don't ask, don't tell, they not only get out of dangerous service, but they'll get a nice cushy job, trust fund to help them out for a couple years while they look for another job.

When the straights in the military hear about this, wouldn't they want to repeal the policy out of jealousy?

On the other hand, this would only serve to increase antagonism between straights and gays. Okay, maybe not such a good idea.

More how to tell if your husband is gay, or, straight rather

From the response to my previous post, there seems to be interest in this topic, so let me suggest another couple helpful methods, but in reverse: i.e. how to tell if your husband is straight. Here are some dead giveaways:

1. He doesn't care so much or at all about his appearance or dress, or he has long hair or had it when you met him and before you convinced him otherwise, although the only exception might be longish curly hair.
   
   
2. He's below 30 years old, born in the US, and not out or known as gay to his close friends and lives in a big city in California or other liberal place.
   
   
3. He does not glance in an attractive guy's direction even for the smallest instant briefly in passing -- even if otherwise obviously preoccupied with, say, talking to you. It could be generalized, that a guy who doesn't check out other reasonably good looking guys is straight. A reason why I think this is a good one is: I know that I've passed women -- with their smaller figures, long hair and lighter footfalls or heels -- without glancing up for a moment. I.e. you can tell someone's sex from far away and if a guy's not interested in a closer look -- it is after all just looking -- he won't bother if he's straight and a guy is approaching, just as I don't when a woman is approaching.
   

This last one reminds me of a funny story. I was walking down a hallway with a friend. We passed two people. My friend asked me if I noticed what the woman was wearing -- it was something suggestive. I hadn't. This was because I was too occupied with checking out the guy -- who was obviously straight because he didn't look up for a second from his female friend. Later, we were walking back and passed this couple again. This time I checked out the guy (again!) -- to myself: 'oh, it's the same guy' -- and then and only then did I remember to look at the girl who had attracted the interest of my definitely straight friend. Finally I was able to respond to his question about what the woman was wearing. (It's a little too bad, but we couldn't share meaningful notes on this one. I.e. whether she was showing too much or not. I couldn't be less of an expert there.)

Of course, I'm out, and so I have dropped any pretense of attempting to mask who gets my 'closer glance' preference. My guess is some closet cases may have developed the counter to this, which is basically to check out every youngish woman he passes and purposely not the guys, at least when he's with his wife. But god, wouldn't that just take any remaining joy out of life? It's just so sickeningly soul crushing to even think about...

How to tell if your husband is gay

Checklist republished by gawker (from a Fox 5 New York posting) of how to tell if your husband is gay. Actually, I consider that it's a pretty good list, though probably if I thought harder about it, I could come up with some more interesting suggestions like:

1. He seems interested in sports, but only knows the rules superficially and only mirrors your interest in them, or
   
   
2. He likes to keep strict limits on the interactions between different areas of his life, like work, old high school friends, college friends, and home (at some point, someone knows his true sexual identity), or
   
   
3. He's actually much prettier than you. when you got married, even your girlfriends said you 'scored' and pumped their fists!
   
   
4. He often doesn't shave, and says he thinks he looks better when he doesn't, or
   
   
5. He watches a lot of television, especially when it might be a good time to have sex. You have a television in the bedroom and it was his idea.
   

Related posts:

More how to tell if your husband is gay, or straight rather: some tip-offs that he's definitely straight

Little indications: gaydar: more insights into gay versus straight

NY Mag: double life: an article about closeted gay husbands

When the Beard is too painful to remove: some commentary from me and a link to the NYTimes piece of the same title.

What's up with callboys outing politicians and evangelists: NYTimes on how discreet callboys might be a thing of the past, the gay generation gap.

Queerty: Straight acting gays

Queerty The guys at Queerty are naturally annoyed at the common gay personals attribute of either the postee liking and/or being "straight-acting". Their post is a little confusing, but the first comment clears up the confusion nicely. I.e. there is a good dose of self-hatred implied if one truly believes this is the right sort of attribute to look for. Sure, discretion might be the better part of valor in a gay-bashing world, but most self-accepting gays know the value of honesty in this regard. It just simplies life so much more not having a boyfriend be still in the closet.

Riff off of Brangolina: Churches refuse marriage licenses for straights

Advocate It's not quite as dramatic as it originally sounds, but some liberal metropolitan churches are now not providing the marriage license to any couples straight or gay. Of course, the straight couples are later free to go to a justice of the peace to get a civil marriage license whereas the gay couples generally cannot. Still it is a fine demonstration of solidarity, and on the side a booster to the idea of separation of church and state.

HRC Consumer Guide for 2008

PDF (2MB) Seems to be constantly updating, yet some things stay the same. Don't buy gas from Exxon or Mobil, they got a big '0' from Equality survey in treatment of their LGBT employees. Instead go to Chevron or BP. Better to use UPS instead of Fedex. Also, Target instead of Walmart or ToysRUs, Best Buy instead of Circuit City, Staples instead of Office Depot, Whirlpool/Maytag instead of GE, AT&T instead of T-mobile, and Toyota, Ford, GM, Chryser, Suburu, Volkswagon instead of Nissan.

Breaking my Walmart habit will be tough, and I'm sort of locked into T-mobile at the moment.

Lesbian wins discrimination suit against Goodyear

Advocate Sounds like a terrible experience for anyone to have to go through.

Dumbledore is gay

By now everyone knows that Dumbledore is gay, at least according to the author in a sort of unwritten postscript. We might have picked up on it. There are hints in the books apparently and nothing clearly disproves it.

I sort of wish Rowling had written it in more explicitly. And no, not that kind of explicit. Just some words to say that Dumbledore liked men. People will say, but this is a children's book! But Rowling is a billionaire, she could have written anything she wanted...

Is it lack of imagination on her part to imagine a world where muggle discrimination is disregarded in the world of wizards? Why couldn't the wizard world have been more advanced here? Possibly because the world wasn't really advanced in any other aspect of social progressiveness. Muggle borns were discriminated against, in a parallel to racism. Perhaps a gay coming of age of one of the main characters would have been a distraction and beyond her powers to write.

I take it that Rowling is a friend to the gay community and don't want to dismiss her gift the community. Still, I think of a bigger opportunity missed. I guess I'll just have to write that children's book myself.

Older gays don't find acceptance in elder housing

NYT Compared to today's younger generation of increased gay acceptance, gay seniors do generally still face ostracism from other elderly and can be reluctant to enter into senior housing facilities.

Why does Craig resign but Vitter stay?

Link Because the Republicans are anti-gay. Rhyme unintended.

Barney Frank on closeted gay republicans

Not sure how long this will stay up on YouTube. Doesn't look like it's sponsored. Note how it goes in and out of focus. Looks like it was taken with a cell phone. Or perhaps this is done purposely to foil automatic copyright detection.

Goodbye Matt Damon fandom

There was a troublingly homophobic snippet of Matt Damon's interview in GQ where he talks about the cars he and Ben were thinking about buying after getting the money for Good Will Hunting.

Damon says, "Because we knew it would be so gay to get the same car [Jeep Grand Cherokee]. And our friends where making fun of us. Like, 'You fags, what are you doing, you're gonna drive around in the same car? Are they gonna say His and His on them?' We both wanted hunter green. So eventually we decided that one had to get black and one had to get green."

Some straight guys and even some gays might say that this is completely normal thing for him to say. But there are clearly negative implications to being viewed as gay here being put out by a mainstream actor. And I think his acquiescing to generalized homophobia is bad as well as highlighting it in a major interview. He even sneaks in the gay slur!! What an asshole!

What would have been much better? Something like: Well, so what if people thought we were gay? We bought the same car anyway. Of course, that would be lying, so, what to do then, would be to not mention this incident at all.

Homophobia is insidious. Something which looks normal and understandable -- oh, I would never want anyone to believe I am gay because it is such a bad thing -- is really degradation, insult, and hate. People are so used to speaking in these terms and automatically thinking it's acceptable. Sure, it's like second nature '80s playground language -- but used by a celebrity in a mainstream magazine.

If I were to restate in racially charged terms, it's like Matt saying: "Ben and I were thinking of buying Cadillacs. My friends were saying: so what are you n*gg*rs now? We *obviously* had to *not* buy Cadillacs because people would think we're a couple of f*cking negros."

Anyway, I'm much less of a Matt fan than I used to be, and now, I think perhaps an end is in order.

Matt Damon, the gay vote, primaries and the election

Well, I happened to read the interview with Matt Damon in GQ where he makes an off-hand homophobic comment (more on that in a later post). I wouldn't say that Damon is a profoundly intellectual guy, despite having gone to Harvard (but not graduated). He has said he doesn't really like Hillary Clinton especially for not admitting voting 'incorrectly' for the war in Iraq. He then draws similarities to George Bush. I.e. haven't we had enough of politicians not admitting their mistakes. I'd say he's got a point there. I suppose you could explain it away as politics as usual, but I'm pretty sick of that.

Then there is the recent rescheduling of Clinton's visits to LBGT run bed and breakfasts in West Virginia. Why was that? She claims it wasn't because they were run by gays. But still it brings into question her sincerity.

Even as Clinton seems to focus on the end game of the election, I'm thinking she isn't far enough left for the primary. Gays should find someone better. Matt's favorite, Barack, isn't that person. We'll see in the gay debates, but only Dennis Kucinick and Mike Gravel support same-sex marriage. At least some sort of message should be sent to the Dems that this lackluster support for gay issues will not win our vote. Bloomberg might be a good alternative if an acceptably strong Dem doesn't show up. The Dems need to pander to the base if they want to win.

Bush threatens veto unless DC funding made anti-gay

Link Wow, it seems so beneath the President to use his veto power in petty and mean ways.

41% of gay Brit students assaulted / Hate-Crimes Legislation

[Towleroad] [BBC] And 17% received death threats. I wonder if it isn't even worse in the US. Education spokesman: "Whether a young person is gay, seen as being gay or has gay parents, homophobic bullying can make their life a misery."

# # #

Queerty reports HRC is asking for your support to urge Congress to pass hate crimes protections. At least listen to the Cindy Lauper classic in the YouTube ad.

Bloomberg waves rainbow flag in pride parade

Link Elizabeth Edwards says she is fine with same-sex marriage. This puts her somewhat opposite her husband. I'm afraid for me there's no collateral benefit from that, unless she convinces her husband to change his stance.
Meanwhile, possible long shot independent candidate Bloomberg marches in the New York pride parade along with Mayor Ed Koch. Although Bloomberg is left-handed, he apparently isn't gay -- he is seeing a girlfriend after divorcing his wife of 19 years. I think I'd vote for Bloomberg if he ran, although it depends on whether he's got a chance or not. He's expressed his opinion that he is for same-sex marriage, although somewhat muddled by the city filing an appeal to a ruling for same-sex marriage. Still, his entrance could be like a Ralph Nader and screw the country with another 'W'. But then again no one could be as bad as 'W' though.

Same-sex marriage passes New York Assembly

Link Unfortunately, the state Senate is still held by Republicans. They say they're not even going to debate the bill in that Chamber. Too bad because Spitzer introduced it. California's got the opposite problem.

BP's Lord Browne (updated)

It just seems to impute more shame on gay folks when someone powerful wants to hide their homosexuality. He's of a different age, and perhaps lives in old Victorian England in his mind, where revealing such things are unthinkable. I suppose he thinks he's won by preventing his private life from been posted for all to see. I can see myself valuing my privacy as well. But less may have been made of this whole thing if he'd just let things be published and made no comment. I suppose it depends though on what 'bad' aspects might be revealed. Still, I would be happy to hide under a rock for a couple years if I could hold on for 2-3 months as a lame duck CEO for $7.7 million bonus. Then again, if I'd already attained hundreds of millions, what good was that tainted and piddling bonus, if I felt like a little money grubbing shit taking it.

I just read that the Canadian was a student -- so likely very young. The student was apparently quite a money grubber. It seems Browne might have taught him a lesson, no?

-- Updated 5/7

As reported by Towleroad, Lord Browne's rent boy was a young, reasonably good looking kid. At least he might have been worth all the trouble.

NYTimes prints the anti-gay f-word slur from Coulter

Permalink Weird. Just a little while back, with the Isaiah Washington statement, NYTimes refused to actually print the word. Now when Ann Coulter says it about John Edwards, it's okay to print. Maybe it makes sense, but then I don't know what the rules are. Hopefully they can enlighten us.

Anyway, it's just incredible that Coulter decides to use the word.

But what was her reasoning behind using the word? She seemed to say she was intending to use it as in insult and not to say that he is actually gay. But that he is a weak, effeminate man. That is really the most offensive use of the word regardless of whether it is applied to a gay man or not.

More or less erudite reasoning on the matter here.