is it wrong to not care about the little furore over the removal of gay posters in brisbane bus shelters? because i really couldn't give a fuck.
i guess what makes me care less (and also feel quite agitated), is that people are getting angry, emotional, and somewhat 'activist' over this. but it's a kind of activism that means you have to 'like' and 'post' rampantly on facebook. it's a sad activism. she who posts loudest is the one who feels the most, right?
and i'm annoyed that it's quite militant. and i'm (just a little bit) aware that my response might also be militant. fighting anger with anger.
like in many segments of the social world there really is no discussion here. you're either a redneck or a progressive. you have no choice not to be outraged or supportive of such devastating oppression. oh please!
as a man who fucks men i guess such ads are aimed at me. but i don't identify with these images; if anything i quite despise them. i don't need to see posters of two people in love while i'm waiting for the bus. i don't need to be reminded that 'my people' are a species that prioritises fucking. and i don't enjoy the gay poster boy aesthetics used by acon/qahc/vac. there's a certain brand of fag here, and it's not appealing to me at all. so sure, take the posters away, i don't mind. and maybe ask some questions about what's being marketed here. what does it mean to sell gay sexuality back to the gays?
what does it mean to sell (predominantly) white, clean, middleclass sexuality to the queers on the street? i'm not suggesting that i'm not these things; i am suggesting that these are not the standards that i wish to salute, protect, or even 'tolerate'. gay health advertising is not my favourite thing, so the more that posters are defaced and challenged (and rendered unsatisfactory), the better. but who has a moment to contemplate this amongst the shouts of homophobia?
an instantaneous politics of 'shut it down now' cannot have time to reflect on what's being sold by a dominant discourse of 'rights' and 'protection'. do we have the right to disagree? do i have a right not to care? must i always be a traitor? in a loud politics of victim vs. oppressor, where our sexual preferences (as in what we 'like') define our being, then maybe i can't be constructed any other way.
AP and I were having a very similar discussion today. Not about the issue of the ads but about "shut down" strategies in the name of "offense". How this process, of being offended, and the inverse of refuting the offensive, squeezes out critical discussion. We were asking what does it mean to be offended? What is it's political effect?
ReplyDeletewhen i saw this on facebook i thought about you and your research and what you might think of it. i am pleased you've written this, because now i know what you think, and because i think the questions you raise here are far more interesting than the arguments about visibility that are being mounted.
ReplyDeleteindeed, let's talk about these things in a few days when i'm in your neighbourhoods. looking forward to it. we can drink tea and talk without keyboards! x
ReplyDeleteHey, thanks Paul. Yes, a good rant. Whilst I agree that these posters are of little relevance to me (for many other reasons also), 'tis always fun to thwart the demands of the Christian Lobby, no matter how juvenile this may seem. As for representation, well, as we know, queer defies easy definition, making issues of any form of collective representation nigh on impossible. The important question - for me - is: "What evidence exits that these public campaigns reach their intended audience and shift risky behaviors?". Sadly, a very marketing oriented question. I'm not sure if I am intended audience here. I suppose in this instance I care more about the actual benefits to public health than those of representation. Not sure if these images/campaigns are actually effective in this respect, no doubt you know about good research on this somewhere, so forgive my ignorance. For me, this is the measure by which I care if they are removed or remain. Which is moot now. So I'll move along...
ReplyDelete