Why Do "They" Have to Make a Big Deal of Who They Are?

Apparently there's been a bit of an online stir in response to Jodie Foster's speech at the 2013 Golden Globes. I've not seen the entire sppech, but in the excerpts I've seen (such as above) she very clearly referred to having come out years ago to her family and friends. Some of the responses I've seen have been...odd. People trying to figure out "Did she just say she's gay?" Ummmmm...yes. There's no other usage of "coming out" that makes sense in this context. She was not, after all, a debutante. Nor did she have a quinceanera (unless I'm vastly misinformed as to her background). Other responses have been, well, a little sad. Not offensive really, but sad. I'm referring to those who have said "I miss the days when people didn't feel the need to reveal themselves like that" or "why did she have to make an issue of it?" Things of that sort. Now, a simplistic reading of those responses would be to say that they express homophobia. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think what they express is heteronormative thinking. It is very possible to have no ill will at all towards gay people, but at the same time only see them and evaluate their behavior from the vantage point of heterosexuality. An example would be "I don't mind gays at all"...not a hateful statement, but one which assumes the RIGHT to "mind" someone else in the first place. To tolerate them, or choose not to do so. That's only really possible if you are in the majority, if you see yourself as the norm against which others are compared. Another example would be "I like gays just fine, except when they act all flamboyant about it" or "I'm fine with gays as long as they don't make a big deal of it." Not hateful, but subtly bigoted all the same. Now, this is a pattern we can see again and again in American culture. The majority culture, when presented with someone who is not part of that majority, responds at first with hostility, then grudging tolerance that is predicated upon compliance with the majority norms. Countless immigrant groups have dealt with that pattern. Think of all of the Americans whose family names were one thing prior to immigration, but were changed to be more accepted. Anglicized. German families have done this. Italian families. Polish, Czech, Slovak, Croatian, et cetera. Why? To be accepted. To be allowed to have value in society. Language is another aspect. Being able to speak English isn't enough. There is an expectation that immigrants not only use English publicly but abandon their own language (and customs) privately. My grandfather was in an orphanage in the twenties, and he and his siblings were beaten for speaking French among themselves. Private, separate conversations leading to violence because the dominant language was not being used. To my knowledge, he never spoke a word of French after that, until he was on his death bed and started to regress to his childhood state. I studied French in school specifically to be able to speak to him in his language. our language. He refused to speak anything but English with me. I never got the chance to speak French with him, and I would've paid dearly to be able to do so. Perhaps those beatings in the orphanage came from animus against Acadians (he never used the slang term Cajun, and did not want me to do so, either). It may have been bigotry motivating those nuns. But perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps it was just, for lack of a better term, Anglo-normative thinking. A belief that to be part of the majority culture, one had to submit to the expectations of the majority. They may even have been trying to help my Grandfather. It is undeniable that my family is much better off socially and economically because of that assimilation. I speak well in court because my grandfather insisted that my mother speak only proper, grammatically correct, accent-free English, and she in turn taught that to me. We have benefitted from the assimilation. But should we have had to do so? Should we have been required to turn away from our mother language, and our culture, in order to find a place in the world? In many senses, that same question is being asked by gay Americans. Living in the closet is the ultimate assimilation, one which causes enormous emotional and spiritual pain. Having to "hide in plain sight" is no way to live. To a lesser extent, being out but trying not to "act too gay" or "make a big deal of it" is an assimilation. No doubt it carries social and monetary benefits. Not rocking the boat often pays off. But...should they have to "not rock the boat"? Should people have to live outwardly as something other than their true selves? Is the goal of social progress merely tolerance? Grudging acceptance, as long as "the rules" are followed? Or is the goal genuine inclusion? Full membership in society, without pretense or condition? Actual...equality? In a pluralistic society, this dilemma is presented again and again to those who are not "the norm." Racial, cultural, and sexual minorities. People whose neurology is different (be they "gifted" or "on the spectrum" or "learning disabled", or, like me, all three). How to fit in. whether to fit in. The question is unavoidable. I've had family members ask me why my wife and I "keep up with that whole black thing." After all, I'm white (LOL), Betty is black but has very fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes, so she looks white to an awful lot of white people (as in those who never lived in or near the Seventh Ward in New Orleans). Our kids look white. So why not just...be white? Why should we have to? Jodie Foster is a brilliant woman. A truly gifted actress, a director, an intellectual. Hell, she's even an Ivy-Leaguer. She has widespread and longstanding respect for her many accomplishments. And, yes, she is gay. By publicly referring to that fact, she wasn't "making a big deal of it", she was telling the rest of us "When you respect and admire me for what I do, you are respecting and admiring someone who is gay." She is who she is, and she's not pretending otherwise. Nor should she have to. We are all flawed beings, imperfect reflections of a perfect truth. The works of angels and devils alike are in our hearts. We see the world not as it is, but as we are able to see it through the fog of our own limitations. The most any of us can ever possess is a part of the truth, a glimmer of insight. The only way to overcome these shortcomings is to turn to one another and recognize that each of us has something meaningful to add. Each of us has value. We have to meet each other and ask not "why aren't you more like me" but "what can I learn from you being...you?" Peace out, brothers and sisters.