Dipping into the mailbag and noting some of the e-mails. Participating are: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot
"Please, please quote me," requested Lucia who figured (rightly) that we'd have a ton of e-mail after last week's edition. She wanted it noted that "You guys haven't taken time off from Iraq and you haven't run from the hard topics. I thank everyone involved because I know what I read results from the varied mix but especially a GLOBAL shout out to Betty who has consistently led on issues of race and avoided the tidy categories that The Nation uses."
Betty: Thank you and let me do a shout out. First of all, Ty and Cedric lead on that as well and often curb their own remarks in transcript pieces in order to give me the space to cut loose. So give them credit. And I'm always on the phone to C.I., Kat and Rebecca. Everything I bring up has already been brought up with them and they do a really great job of listening and encouraging. I think race is something that we haven't shied from here. And I think Lucia is 100% correct that it's due to the mix. And it's also due to, shout outs again, to Dona and C.I. who will realize if someone's been cut off or if something gets pulled. If we pull something, they will always check with us and they are both very adamant that we pull because we don't like the way we worded something. I once told Dona I pulled a point because I thought it was really minor and her reply, I remember it and follow it, was, "Betty, let's say it was minor for the sake of argument, okay? But if you aren't making it, who is going to make it? It meant something to you so you said it and it would have meant something to people reading." And so I do act on that advice. And, of course, everyone's supportive to each other throughout these editions. Even if we disagree. And we have. We all have at one point or another.
Cedric: I'll agree and just add that I agree with Lucia that Betty has been a leader on this issue. She said that Ty and I curb our remarks and give her space. When we do that, it's because we know she made a strong point with us earlier. I'd also argue that she may not get the credit she deserves -- hopefully, she does get that credit -- because she's got these constraints at her site where she's doing a fictional character who's married to Thomas Friedman. I think she covers the issue of race there as well. But if you read her stuff here, or when she's guest blogging for Rebecca or someone else, or any of the joint posts she's done with Ty and myself, you'll quickly realize what a very real leader she has been.
Ty: I'd agree with that and just add quickly that I think it's due to the fact that when she's speaking she's not just speaking for herself and other adults. She's got three small children and I'm not saying children make one person better than someone who doesn't have children but I am saying that her being the sole caregiver for her three kids makes her not just really aware of what she witnessed growing up but of what it is like for the little ones today. And that's where she's coming from when she's speaking.
Bernadette writes that she loved "TV: Global Boring" but felt she was missing something with the weak politics of the closeted lesbian set. "There just seemed to be more," she writes.
Ava: There actually was. I'll do the background and then toss to C.I. But we stripped a portion, probably three paragraphs, out of it right before it posted. In that we were addressing the issue of "out." Most, but not all, who are famous are "out" in some form. It may be a "common knowledge in the industry" thing, it may be out to people in the industry with the understanding that no one must ever speak of it. But we were tackling several things in that section. One aside noted the attacks Ann Heche got for stating that Ellen DeGeneres was her first female partner. We noted that Heche has been very upfront and had no reason to lie about it. We noted that the attacks against her and the fear that it would lead to feeding the belief that people could be "turned gay" were awfully strange when you consider those same issues hadn't been raised earlier for Melissa Ehteridge's first wife, whom you may remember, was married before. We talked about the issue of courage in relation to what might be lost and noted that for many riding the easy circuit, nothing would be lost. They could, in fact, add some heat to their careers and they would surely add some hope to the lives of many young gays and lesbians. C.I.?
C.I.: There are several riding the easy activism train but the one we were specifically thinking of made it a point to state she was about to come out during the end of the 90s and is now doing so again. Strangely, whenever she's photographed with her current partner, they always have a man between them. Apparently the perfect accessory for the closeted set. At this point, her coming out is not going to hurt her career -- some would argue, "What career?" -- but her little irritating dance has already hurt many. In the 90s, a major artist wanted to take part in a tour that Closet X was also a part of. Closet X was repeating, for the second or third year, that she would be coming out. Major is straight, publicly straight. She ended up doing her own tour and that was because she wanted to avoid the question of, "Are you gay too?" She has a sizable gay following and could see how this could be turned into a joke by radio dee jays and just the fact that they'd repeatedly ask would mean she'd have to have some form of response. She didn't want to be one of the ones repeating over "I'm not gay." She didn't want her reply to what would be an expected question to become a sore spot among her fans because that can happen. By merely answering the question, if it's asked repeatedly, some could have interpreted it as though she were saying there was something distasteful about being gay. She went back and forth on this and even tried to come up with funny lines -- such as "Are you trying to fix me up with your sister?" -- but in the end decided the smarter thing to do was to do her own show where her fans know, gay or straight, they are welcome. That tour could have used Major. Currently Closet X has a new partner and is again stating she's coming out. She's not coming out. She'll have to be forced out with a George Michael like incident, and I'm not slamming him with that, I'm just noting that it would take something like that for her to come out. Closet X's sexuality would be her own business if she didn't (a) repeatedly tell everyone that she's about to come out and (b) work hard to get coverage on her male-female match ups.
I personally, my own opinion, do not believe you use your personal life, talk about it to the press, to build a career. That's straight or gay. The problem so many have with Closet X is that she's out in the industry, wants credit for that, repeatedly announces she's coming out -- in fact Liz Smith may have ran an item on that in the 90s -- and yet not only makes a show of being photographed with supposed men in her life, she also yammers on about the supposed romantic affairs to the press. Every one, straight and gay, has lost patience with her and when her newest love interest grasps that there is no going public, she'll leave Closet X as well.
On the same commentary, Lou wanted to know what "your problem is with Melissa Etheridge?"
Ava: Well, if it's about our commentary, that's obviously directed to C.I. and I. I would say our problem is pretty clear: she'll do the easy activism and ride that 'brave' image while doing nothing to end the illegal war. She won't touch that topic. That's not bravery. And the point we were making in the commentary is that she was out to the industry long before she was a name to the public. She never hid that. She didn't try to play like she was all hot for some guy. In the early 90s she finally confirmed what wasn't really a secret to the public to begin with. You can judge for yourself how much bravery was or wasn't involved in that. You can also note that she had her biggest success when she was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as brave. Speaking for me, C.I.'s more kind to her than I am, her work since has been cowardly. She's put out one weak album after another and always with an excuse. Take the promotion for 2001's Skin where she's going on about how her album right before, Breakdown, wasn't really accurate because she couldn't write about the estrangement that was leading up to the break up with her first wife. To me, she grabs the easiest things in the world including musically. If I wanted to hear a Springsteen knock-off, I'd listen to Bob Seger.
C.I.: In the thing Lou's supposedly read, Ava and I note that we objected to Rebecca's joke in a previous feature. We then go on to note that NBC obviously agreed with Rebecca's interpretation. If she would speak out against the illegal war, I wouldn't have any need to criticize her. But she won't and that puts her on the list with the others who get criticized who do. I don't know how old Lou is but it's also true that there was a generational split here sometime ago. Long ago, we included her book in a book discussion. I ended up defending her and was initially surprised by that, that she'd need to be defended. But time has moved on and what passed for bravery at the start of the 90s is more common place today. But I'm going to toss to Ty for that.
Ty: And I'll gladly grab it because I am gay. I don't see any bravery. Yes I Am, I can listen to that. I can enjoy it as a rock CD. There are like three songs on the follow up that would qualify as rock. She's so watered down musically at this rate, I'm talking instrumentation, that you're really stretching the word to call her "rock." It's also true that outside of the song for Matthew Sheppard, which I didn't think cut it lyrically, there's really nothing here that a Bob Seger or any generic artist couldn't be singing. If she wants credit for being brave, write something brave. Yeah, you came out. Woopie! And it was a generational split. I'm the only one participating who's gay. So the generational split really isn't about gay or straight. There are a number of reasons that she wrote a bad book. C.I. explained that in our book discussion, only C.I. doesn't think it's a bad book. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. But what was a big deal in 1991 or 1992, to the rest of the core five, we're like, "Eh." The core five weren't even teenagers then. So we've come of age after that. And as to the historical aspect of it, I could appreciate that if there was anything else on show. I really haven't seen it. And talk about trading on your personal life to advance your career, she releases Breakdown at the end of 1999 and it's selling so-so she shows up on the January 10th, 2000 cover of Rolling Stone with her wife, her kids and David Crosby to announce he's the sperm donor. And it's all smiles and we're so happy and it's forever and eight months later she and her wife are announcing that they're through? Does the world really need to know who your sperm donor was to begin with? I mean, maybe they do. But, again, a so-so album with so-so sales and suddenly it's time to trot out David Crosby and talk about how wonderful your marriage and family are. Did you not see it coming?
C.I.: Well, I mean, obviously she did. As Ava pointed out, when promoting Skin in 2001, she would repeatedly state that Breakdown was her biting her tongue on those songs because things weren't going well. That album came out before the Rolling Stone cover and was written and recorded long before the cover.
Ty: Good point. So there you have it, the perfect example of trading on your personal life to advance your career. No one needed to know who your sperm donor was. It landed a cover and helped with sales of the so-so album. I don't hate Melissa Etheridge, but she really doesn't speak to me. Her lyrics are weak and the music is too muzacky. In terms of specifics, she really hasn't come out lyrically in my opinion. There are many artists, gay and straight, whose lyrics offer something I can identify with. Her lyrics? I'm gay and I'm African-American. I didn't grow up wanting to be Bruce Springsteen. And that's the real struggle she fights on every album, how to be like Springsteen. She doesn't win and I've gone from my high school days of getting her CDs, and I did and solely because she is gay, thinking that it would have something I would relate with to just not caring if she ever puts out another CD. Kat's got a great review of Mavis Staples new CD that will be up either when you're reading this or shortly after. But I can identify with that CD.
Kat: We'll Never Turn Back.
Ty: Right. I love that CD and I can connect with the songs on so many different levels. Mavis never forgets she's an African-American or tries to be someone else. She's singing of specific things and I think they are relatable to all races. Etheridge, to me, is still hiding her sexuality on CD and still trying to play the pronoun game. It doesn't interest me and Bob Seger's at least offered "Night Moves." She's offered nothing on that level to this day. So if I want to hear a Springsteen-like artist, I'll listen to Seeger and skip Etheridge.
Same commentary, Jill wanted to be sure Rebecca was okay with being named in that for coming up with the Etheridge lines the week prior?
Rebecca: Yes, I Was! Really, I wasn't named in the original version. When Jim was reading it out loud to the rest of us. That part read a little differently. After he was done, I asked about that and Ava and C.I. said they didn't want to put anyone on the spot. You know I don't care. If someone doesn't think my joke is funny, I don't care. So I told them, "Use my name." I think it came off stronger in their commentary as a result. Before it was kind of going around the point and once they could say "Rebecca" it worked much better.
Lynda writes, "I just want you to know I think it's cowardly that you don't offer comments or an e-mail address for me to share what I think and . . . Oh, you do. Did The Nation apologize for the use of 'cowardly'?"
Jim: No, they didn't. Jess?
Jess: No. After the 60-plus K e-mail, there was an "Oops" e-mail, that was it's title. It did not apologize for calling us cowards. It was "Oops, they do have an e-mail address posted." They have never apologized for the "cowardly" remark. I doubt they would.
Jim: I tossed to Jess because he's the one who came across the e-mails. He and Ava help out with the e-mails to The Common Ills. The big one, the 60-plus one, was supposed to be shared. I didn't even see the "Oops" e-mail. It's the weekend and that means no one's really working the accounts at The Common Ills. So it's possible that an apology came in for calling us "cowardly." But as of what?
C.I.: Saturday morning was the last time I checked.
Jim: Saturday morning, as of Saturday morning, there was no apology for calling us "cowardly" for not allowing any way for people to respond when we, in fact, do allow it. Lynda's a community member, by the way. In case anyone's wondering, "Is that our Lynda?" -- it is. But they can call us whatever they want. It's really no skin off my ass. But they were so obviously wrong on that issue of e-mail address and, Lynda's right, they did base their charge of cowardice on that, that you might expect them to at least apologize. I'll toss to Elaine.
Elaine: I only have one friend at The Nation. But I got a call Tuesday night and the response was less than positive to last week's edition. We were laughing, my friend and I, over the phone about the response. And I should probably clarify that with a small segment was outraged. Some others pretended to be. As, I believe it was Jim, noted last week, our distaste with the magazine's current edition is shared by many including students and including people with the magazine. I could go further but I'll leave it at that.
Julie writes that she loved the use of the Mamas and the Papas' songs last week. She wonders what the response was overall?
Dona: Ty's nodding to me. We worked the e-mail account primarily and C.I. and Elaine ended up helping us out Thursday and Friday. And I think we've all hit it at some point during the writing of this edition. There was one person who chided us for "picking on The Nation" and that was it. The other responses were all supportive with many echoing the points already made such as zero coverage of war resisters, little to no concern with the Iraq war, a dismal publishing rate for women, etc. I'll toss to Ty.
Ty: The love for Ava and C.I. is legendary with our readers. There were hundreds of "How dare The Nation" e-mails with regards to the attempt to push their own problems at the magazine on off others. We're using something from one such e-mail for a stand alone feature. But there were hundreds and hundreds. Readers do not take kindly to Ava and C.I.'s feminist credentials being questioned period and they certainly do not take kindly to the very non-feminist, very anti-woman -- a popular phrase in the e-mails -- Nation magazine doing so. If I read you on that topic, I tried to type out at least one line of a reply if you were a regular reader. If you're a regular and you didn't get any form of a reply, I wasn't reading your e-mail.
Dona: That can be directed to me. I didn't take or make the time to reply. I believe Elaine and C.I. did.
Elaine: I did. I think I did about 100 replies. I mainly replied if I recognized the name as a community member of if they identified themselves in the e-mail as such. Beau, for instance, did identify himself in that manner. Other than the topics Dona and Ty have already addressed, I would say there was a lot of echoing of C.I.'s "It's nice to be read" statement as well as a lot of outrage that anyone would contact someone and charge a pattern of errors -- "glaring errors" -- without even bothering to note one. Community member Molly's e-mail sticks out in my mind on that. She compared it to the sort of thing Alan Dershowitz would do when attacking Norman Finkelstein. That made me laugh and it stands out.
C.I.: There were a lot of wonderful e-mails and I did make a point to reply to each one I read. The one that stood out most was on Friday and it was from a family member of a war resister. She recounted what that was like for her family and how it really hurt to realize that The Nation doesn't care -- "give a damn" was how she put it -- because people are "risking their entire futures and it's not even registering in the pages of the magazine." We've all received those e-mails, Trina got a wonderful one from the sister of a war resister, and they are always appreciated because we do know war resisters and we know the hardship they undertake to stand up but those sort of e-mails remind us that when the silence continues it doesn't just hurt the war resisters, it hurts their families and friends.
Mike: That's one of those e-mails that we all get. I mean, we've all heard at our own e-mails something like that. But when an e-mail comes in to this site on that, it's passed on to all of us and it does, like C.I. pointed out, remind us again how important it is that we do not drop this issue. Enough media has already failed on this topic. I'll also say, sorry, I didn't know anyone needed help.
Jim: Actually, Dona's remark was directed at me. I don't think she or Ty asked Elaine and C.I. to help. I think they offered.
Dona: Correct on both counts.
Soom223 e-mailed wondering if we'd ever considered doing a roundtable via I.M.? "You'd have your transcript all done at the end and just be able to copy and paste."
Wally: Yeah, we thought of that and we tried it once. What happened was that we talk faster than we type. This weekend we're all together. Usually, you've got the West Coast branch, the upper-East Coast branch, the lower East Coast branch -- that would be me -- Betty in Georgia and I don't think Cedric's publicly revealed his location. But we did try that once. That way everyone was responsible for their own typing. If there was a typo, you'd know who got it wrong, and Ava and C.I. didn't have to take notes the entire time. What happened is we type slower than we talk, as a group, we have different connection speeds, we weren't copying and pasting throughout and at one point or another we all lost our I.M. screens so it ended up being a wasted attempt. Mike was the most frustrated by that because he is the slowest typist.
Mike: A badge I wear proudly! Yeah, we thought of that and thought it was an answer but that didn't end up being the case. On typing speed, I'll jump in and add that from time to time Blogger/Blogspot has some glitch and I can't see what I'm typing for a paragraph or two. I always complain at my site when that happens. But I was studying C.I. this week, for a column in today's Polly's Brew about how those entries come together at The Common Ills, and most of the time, C.I.'s a fast typist, C.I. can't see what's being typed.
Louise has a 16 month old baby and was wondering if Rebecca felt accomidations were being made for her since she gave birth?
Rebecca: Yes. They are being made, they have been made. That actually started during the pregnancy. At one point, they were so accomodiating, they were telling me I couldn't help out!
Seriously, they were worried it would put a strain on the pregnancy. But, yes, there have been things done many times. And if my baby wakes up, I'm obviously nursing and attending there. That's not a problem. Usually, I'm over at Mike's and if Flyboy is asleep and the baby wakes up, Mike or Elaine will say, "Finish your point" or whatever and they'll end up doing the diaper changing and then I take over the feeding. When I was pregnant, everyone but the core six was put on a sleep schedule. We'd all be told, "Go to sleep. We'll work on stuff and bring you back in later." What else? Like I said, I'm generally at Mike's and Mike and Elaine are always more than happy to hit the rocker when the baby's restless. There's a general wake up time on Sunday mornings -- early mornings -- and when that time's approaching everyone will start making a point to let me go first if it's a roundtable or ask my thoughts or whatever because they know I will vanish for a brief time. In terms of my own site. There's not been a night that's gone by that Betty hasn't called and said, "If you need it, I can blog for you tonight." A schedule was set up for me -- I didn't take part in that, it was a gift -- of how to cover for my site if I'm unable to blog for some reason. Everyone's been very supportive.
