Categories
Gay Politics

On the distribution of gay teenagers…

Yesterday (via new-favourite-weblog Let Me Get This Straight), I stumbled upon an article about a Bronx senator and a conservative legal group in Florida who are suing the Harvey Milk school in New York with discrimination. The Harvey Milk school is the target of this attack because it is ‘the gay school” – it’s being accused of discrimination because (apparently) it discriminates against straight students (Lawsuit challenges gay high school). Now the school is unlikely to have too much trouble with this threat because it’s actually open to students of any sexuality. It’s perhaps not too much of a shock, however, that only gay students really want to enter into a programme that’s marked as being particularly capable of meeting their needs of people who are experiencing problems at their schools on the basis of their sexuality. I’d love to see the barely-hidden smile when they say, “We’re open to anyone who’s having trouble at their schools because of their sexuality – so find me a straight kid who’s being beaten up and harrassed by an overwhelming force of gay students and is being failed institutionally by an entirely gay staff and they’re in…” In fact in many ways this whole enterprise is a really bad idea for the anti-gay people – they’re just providing a platform for gay activists to detail all the ways in which our education systems fail gay teenagers [cf. On Homophobic Bullying in Schools].

Now I’ve had a couple of conversations with friends about the Harvey Milk school and they’ve been quite surprised by my feelings towards it. They assume it’s a kind of ghettoisation and that we should instead be fighting to make all schools gay-friendly. Certainly, this isn’t an uncommon feeling among gay people – the respondents to the Let me Get This Straight post aren’t uncritical. But I’m not critical at all – in fact quite the opposite. First and foremost I’m supportive because the specifics of the functioning of the school aren’t really encapsulated in the phrase ‘gay school’ very well – I think there’s generally a misunderstanding about what the school is there to achieve and when you explain its function to people, they pretty much get it immediately. It’s not there because gay children are a problem, and it’s not there to try and detach them from straight people or ‘normal’ life in any way – it’s there because the kids are getting regular, daily harrassment in their current school – harrassment that is almost impossible to control, permeates everywhere and can be extremely dangerous. Of course these things should be fixed at the source – school shouldn’t be a homophobic environment – but while they are, in extreme cases, you can understand the reasoning…

The other aspect of this is more complicated and I think it’s got something to do with the geographic distribution of gay children. Now the most obvious grounds for discrimination are probably things like religion, race, background or gender. For every single one of those things, while there are some schools in which one religion, race, background or gender might be in a significant minority, there are other schools in which the same ‘type of person’ will be in the majority. In religion, race and background these things are likely to be geographically determined – what’s a minority in one place will be a majority elsewhere. And (all things being equal, as in fact they never are) that means that there’s always the possibility of moving to a place where your child will not be judged on the basis of that one signifier.

Gender is different of course – there isn’t (for example) a massive geographical clumping of women around Nottingham. But still – there’s a roughly 50/50 split in boys and girls in pretty much every reasonably sized area in the world, so any places where there are lots of boys will mean a different place with lots of girls nearby. And of course – in terms of gender and schools – there are more often than not only really three stable states – girls only, boys only or roughly 50/50 (with exceptions of course for schools that place different emphases on subjects that attract one gender more than the other but are open to both – not uncommon, but also normally evened out by the presence locally of schools that complement them).

Now gay kids are in a different situation. Firstly, they’re not in any way geographically clumped. If living in a specific area would normally mean that the people you go to school with would be on average more similar to you on all the axes of religion, background, income and race (language even), it bears no relationship to whether or not they’re going to be gay or not. This makes it quite distinct from the geographical spread of gay adults, who tend towards cities where there’s more opportunity to clump into interest communities and lifestyle communities. But gay parents don’t necessarily have gay children, if they have children at all – so even in the most gay areas on the planet, there are still going to be no more gay kids than the 0.5% – 10% seem worldwide.

So they’re not geographically clumped, but nor are they evenly balanced like the genders. Gay kids represent a disreet chunk of the school-attending population – but not a particularly large chunk. The figures for the incidence of homosexuality among adults vary dramatically depending on which study you believe, but the consensus is that it’s probably somewhere between 0.5% and 10%. At school, the figure of kids who are out to their friends and families (let alone to the world at large) will be considerably smaller than this figure.

So what does this mean? It means, fundamentally, that gay kids will pretty much always be in the minority at their schools. They’ll pretty much always be considered the freaks and they’ll pretty much always have to see themselves as strange, different or abnormal. In this they probably have much more in common with groups with unusual inherited mental or physical attributes that have the potential to ostracise – and that’s everything from severe physical handicaps all the way to the unusually bright. Some of these groups we don’t have second thoughts about schooling differently – autistic children or the insanely clever for example. Others (those with physical problems for example) we try to integrate into local schools – because we believe that whenever possible a physical problem shouldn’t be a reason to stop an individual having the same options and opportunities as anyone else.

So that brings us to gay teenagers – what group are they in? Do they deserve access to the same options and opportunities as everyone else – clearly yes. But do they also have needs that aren’t likely to be met in a school in which they’ll always be in a radical minority. I’d say yes to that too. A gay teenager should have the opportunity while at school to realise that there are loads of other people like themselves, to forget – for a while at least – that they are not like everyone else. They should also have the opportunity to meet and date and flirt with other teenagers without wondering if they’re going to get beaten up. They should have the ability to have crushes on people without it being statistically inevitable that they’d have them on straight people. They should have the opportunity to do all that learning about relationships and going steady that are open in principle to straight people in general (even if many straight kids don’t feel able to take advantage of them).

So where does that leave us? Clearly the Harvey Milk model isn’t right for every gay kid or – indeed – even every big city. Nonetheless something needs to be done. There has to be some way for all gay teenagers to have someone to advise them without worrying that their secret will get back to their families before they’re ready to tell them themselves. And there has to be a way for gay kids to have those Dawson’s Creek moments that their straight friends wander through without realising how lucky they are. Maybe better guidance counsellors and gay summer-camps are the answer – who knows… But let’s not close our minds to the option of schools that advertise themselves as gay-friendly just yet, eh? The situation’s too grim at the moment to shut any options completely off…

Categories
Random

The Disposable Happy Trash of Fun Love Stuff!

And here we are at the end of our tour of the best and worst that Theme Park World has to offer. We’ve experienced the intellectual highs of science, the corrupt dismal depths of current affairs and the gleaming happy purity of the ever-present loving touch of mothership Apple. But at the end of our journey – what will you take with you? What goody bag will return back with you to the humdrumity of ‘I.R.L.’? I’ll tell you what… A motley selection of linky trash fun!

Categories
Random

The Sage Beauty of Apple Computers!

Our penultimate ride today (ladies and gentlemen) will be a sedate and elegant one indeed. Clamber about your transport – the translucent white ones are slower but I think more elegant – and prepare to see the view from above the great fields of Apple Computing! An experience not to be missed… One day only…

Categories
Random

Thrills and spills in Current Affairs!

Don’t give up faith, my children – our epic journey is reaching its conclusion! But first it’s time for the thrills and spills of the dark and dirty depths of current affairs, journalism and politics. Will you lose your very soul to the mischief and profanity? Will the dark clammy hand of fate slide down your back towards your trousers? Slow and methodical but relentless?

Categories
Random

The Magic Palace of Design and Fonts!

Come closer! Come closer! Our tour of the epic achievements of the interweb progresses! See as we approach the Palace of Design and fonts, inlaid with Mother of Pearl and Lapis Lazuli, filled with epic gauntlets as big as a man dribbling with pomegranate juice and ice-filled silver bathtubs cooling design mangos and fresh typeface champagne…

Categories
Random

Wonderful world of weblogging!

Gasp in stunned awe at the “wonderful world of weblogging”! See the strange solitary creatures scuttling around in their underpants in rooms full of empty coke cans and pizza boxes. Beware their strange and colourful stenches!

Categories
Random

Awesome applications of Science!

Ladies and gentlemen, today I present to you six – count them – six “awesome applications of science and technology” from wooden mirrors to ships made of ice…

Categories
Random

Power-cuts in the States…

Thanks to Cameron from Blogdex for pointing this out – as America is hit by a massive powercut you can track New York power consumption in real-time on the New York energy market. I suppose it would be a dumb question to ask if there’s anyone online in New York or in the power-cut areas across the eastern seaboard, but if there is here’s something you can do: Blackout.textamerica.com is a site that’s collating images from the ground sent in by MMS. All you have to do is send in images via e-mail from your phone to blackout.814@tamw.com. That’s assuming – of course – that your mobile phone network is working – which is highly suspect, I believe…

Categories
Random

The Chamber Pot…

To start off with – I should apologise to the various people who come here for stuff about social software. I’ve been thinking in very different directions with the new job and I’m only just starting to get to a space where I can start reconciling them. Having said that – I’m not really sure that my slightly tangential approach to my writing over the last few weeks has really changed the character of my site that much – certainly not enough to make the main search requests that reach my site How do I masturbate, shit and You’re a Fag. Sigh. I’m the internet’s chamber pot. Makes a chance from Paradoxes of Liberalism, I suppose…

Categories
Journalism Personal Publishing

On 'two years' of weblogs…

Every single time I get asked by someone for my opinion on the whole “weblogs as journalism” thing, I give pretty much the same response. First things first – there are differences. That should be pretty obvious. One clear difference is that working for an established organisation or brand gives you access to the newsgathering machinery. By that I mean from the low-grade, cost-dependent things like being able to afford to get Reuters newsfeeds all the way up to the stuff that’s all about being ‘in the club’ – ie. everything from being invited to movie review screenings before the film is released through to being able to be present in the press room of the White House. These latter things work on the principle that it’s not possible to let all the world in to ask all the questions they might like, so there are representatives from the newspapers who ask those questions for them. Fair enough – to an extent that kind of thing is unlikely to be heavily democratised, and quite rightly so.

The other difference between weblogs and established mainstream journalism is in terms of the brand – and more importantly the mechanisms that are supposed to lie behind that brand. The trusted brand is supposed to reflect an organisation that makes sure its journalism conforms to good standards of fact-checking, that it is guaranteed to be professional, that it asks the questions that its readers want answered and that if it is not there is a space and a process whereby redress that can be made. This is what I normally argue when asked – that although there is a lot of overlap between mainstream journalism and weblogs (particularly around opinion pieces, editorials, reviews and … less fortunately … regurgitated press releases), there are some things that – for the most part – are done better by the professionals. Webloggery – as yet – cannot even think of competing with the professional newsgatherers.

Well that’s what I normally say anyway – despite the fact that absolutely anyone who’s ever been featured in a news story (or ever seen a news story about anything they actually know about) knows full well that journalists routinely seem to get quite important and easy-to-check facts wrong. Here’s today’s example in a piece about (what else) weblogging by Bill Thompson from the BBC: “All over for blogs?”. And the typically offending line?

“The earliest bloggers have been at it for two years now – how many days can someone keep on posting to their LiveJournal site, or visiting Blogger to add more details about their cat’s mysterious illness? ” [my emphasis]

Decent journalists, according to my training, when they put a date or a figure in their work are either supposed to check that figure and mark it as checked, or their sub-editors are supposed to check it for them, grudgingly and with a certain amount of irrtation. I don’t know where the gap in professionalism was that allowed this ‘two year’ figure to go to print, but I do know that it started with the person who wrote the damn article and should have checked in the first place.

The earliest webloggers have been going for two years, then? That should make me positively primordial, since I’ve been posting regularly since November 1999. Meg Meish in the UK was also posting around then, I believe. Cal Henderson and Matt Webb were both definitely posting regularly over three years ago. There were loads of other people across the UK and the US who started posting around or shortly after that time. And we’re all children compared to the long-haul people…

And what’s this? If you do a basic Google search for History of Weblogs you get seven articles about the origins of weblogs on the first page? And what do they say? That, “In 1998 there were just a handful of sites of the type that are now identified as weblogs (so named by Jorn Barger in December 1997). Jesse James Garrett, editor of Infosift, began compiling a list of ‘other sites like his’ as he found them in his travels around the web.” [Rebecca Blood] So that’s five years for certain – five and a half for certain if we include kottke.org (one of the most linked-to and visited weblogs on the internet). If we look further back, then Dave Winer started Scripting News in April 1997, a few months before the term ‘weblog’ was invented by John Barger of Robot Wisdom. So now we’re nicely over the six year mark – and with what? Thirty seconds worth of research?

So where does that leave us with weblogs vs. journalism? Well I still stand by my word – for the most part proper news gathering is better done by paid professionals with the budgets, access and accountability. There’s still space for professionalism. And as soon as I find that professionalism evidencing itself in the opinion section of the BBC News Technology supplement, I’ll let you know…