Recent Posts
Ellen & Portia
It’s that time of year again, time to nominate the 25 allegedly most influential fags and dykes in Australia.
I like the idea of celebrating success in environments where it’s tough and challenging to be out and gay. But looking back over previous lists, some inclusions seem, well, strange.
Like Portia De Rossi, holding down a really challenging gig as a same-sex celebrity wife.
Of course some clearly deserve celebrating, like Love Makes a Family’s Felicity Marlowe, or GLLO Melinda Edwards.
And Matthew Mitcham clearly had some influence, even though Olympic pool sports are already as gay as ice-dancing, or ballroom dancing (with only marginally skimpier costumes).
And please don’t try to make me call the latter ‘dance sports’, or I shall have to start calling three-act ballets ‘triathlons’ – it’s a gay sport, get over it. We let you join in, if you can camp it up enough, don’t we?
But to get back to the subject: there are ‘influential’ out gays and lesbians – even on the SameSame lists - who refuse to use their influence. Won’t front up at rallies to say a few words, sing a song, or just be there, except maybe for a fat fee. Who resent the suggestion that ‘just because they’re gay,’ they have an obligation to ‘give back’ to their own people. Who trot out the line that they ‘don’t want to become a gay poster boy/girl’.
I have my own list of these selfish freeloaders, but I thought it would be more fun to ask people, who’s on yours? So last week on my radio program Freshly Doug (Thursday 9 till Noon, Joy 94.9 Melbourne, streaming live over the web) I launched “The ShameShame Top 25 Influential Gays & Lesbians Who Do Jack Schitt for GLBTI.”
It was an interesting exercise. There were nominees who divided opinion, like Molly Meldrum, who was liked for no discernible reason, but also criticised for saying nothing. At least, nothing anyone could understand.
On the one hand John Michael Howson was panned as ‘simply awful’, a ‘tame poofter’ on shock-jock station 3AW, while others were proud to have him on our side.
Alan Jones was a somewhat less divisive nominee – no-one had a good word for him, with or without his prostate.
Nor for Penny Wong, for putting her career before her community, and for being an out lesbian cabinet member, yet refusing to speak out publicly in support of our rights, and even endorsing the governments ‘separate but equal’ policies.
And Bob Brown may be Green but we think he should be Pinker, leading a pro-gay party but not using that party’s Senate strength effectively on our behalf.
Jonathan Welch and Julie McCrossin each got a serve for ‘pretending to care about the poor’, as one unhappy listener put it, refusing to speak out against the governments failure to grandfather the changes to aged pensions that hit elderly gay couples hard.
High Court Justice Virginia Bell copped it for being ‘a poor replacement for Michael Kirby’ who seems ‘uncomfortable publicly acknowledging her sexuality, let alone advocating for it’.
Some people nominated the Lobbies, for dropping everything else and homing in blindly on gay marriage to the exclusion of almost all else. Others disliked wasting time on 'Orwellian' ideas like 'hate crime' and 'hate speech'. Better call it 'thoughtcrime' and be honest about it.
Do these lists really matter? Isn’t the SameSame awards ceremony just another of those feel-good intra-community events like Divas, Rainbows, Prides, which like all circle-jerks are fun at the time but ultimately a wasted opportunity? Is it anything more than a self-serving publicity stunt to drive web traffic to a not especially interesting website that sources most of its content second hand, unacknowledged and unpaid?
Why else include out, gay and influential nominees who refuse to use their influence for our benefit, like Wong and Brown, or who are simply celebrities who happen to be gay, like Tony Sheldon. He’s a wonderful performer and a lovely man, but really, does being a gay man in musical theatre who leaps into drag at the drop of a handbag really make him ‘influential’?
These cynical inclusions diminish the honour being done to those who really do work hard on our behalf and achieve their influence by doing so. They are the ones really worth celebrating.
(You can see the original ShameShame nominations and comments to date – and add your own - on the Freshly Doug blog at Really Long Link or add a comment below)
Show me the money! (pic: Knox News)
Rupert Murdoch has been complaining of late that no-one will pay him for all the stuff he puts online. For once in my life, I sympathise with the Great Satan of Media. Three times in as many weeks I’ve been asked to work on websites, and none of them want to pay.
Site 1- Australia: This lot actually got in touch with me and asked me to come in for a meeting.
“Write what you like! Consolidate content from anywhere on the web. We have a terrific technical team, we’ll help you create amazing video blogs and make really cool podcasts.”
“We're offering you a partnership. We know there’s a huge gay market out there, the advertisers will come if we can tap it, you can help us do that.”
Well, sorry guys, I say, but the only gay thing on the web that makes money is sex, and I don’t really do sex. You know, a buff shirtless 20yr old in a jockstrap making a gay video blog might hit the big time like you want, but a rising-60 bear with a belly and manboobs – not so much.
“Oh, it can’t be anything to do with sex. It’s got to be tasteful. Serious. And classy. You have the right profile. You’re quality. We have top flight blue chip advertisers raring to go, begging us to get this off the ground - but they won’t be associated with anything involving gay sex. All you have to do is figure out what will bring in the punters – without sex – and we’ll bring in the advertisers. And we’ll split the revenue with you.”
Yeah, right. But there's no salary. So what if I work the aforementioned man-boobs off for nothing, create the site, and the punters and therefore the advertisers don’t come? How long am I expected to work for nothing before you show me the door – with nothing? No deal.
Site 2 - USA: This was via email.
“Come over to us and we’ll market and promote you around the world. We’ll get you a book deal. A movie deal. You could be the next big thing. We’ll split the book royalties. We’ll take care of all the movie deals.”
See Site 1: Writer works for nothing, unless the site makes money, in which case he hands over most of it to publisher. No deal.
Site 3 – Aus: Gay.
Has ‘vacancies’ for writers, photographers. Sells ad space but doesn’t pay for content – unless you count tickets, CDs, DVDs for reviewers. Otherwise it’s just a namecheck. Most of the writing is superficial rewrites of stuff found elsewhere on the net, without acknowledgement or links. Would 'love' me to write for them. What’s known as a ‘vampire’ site.
Site 4 – Aus: I'll give you 3 guesses.
“We’ll give you your own blog on our site with its own domain name. We’ll promote your work. Set up a Google ad account and we'll split the ad revenue with you.”
But they retain ownership of the domain name, and if you don’t keep up a regular publishing schedule, they take it off you and give it to someone else. And so far I’ve yet to see any promotion outside the main hosting site. Or any ad revenue.
On the other hand, it’s a handy and cost-free online presence that can be used to promote and showcase my work with minimum effort. Deal – for now.
The Price of Vanity
All these sites have willing mugs who work for them for nothing, just for the thrill of seeing their names online. Sure, there’s a (vanishingly small) chance the odd one will be talented and lucky enough to be plucked from obscurity, but most of them will just get plucked.
This is called ‘vanity publishing’, and it’s been around in the real world for years. People with more time and/or money than sense have always been able to have their work published at their own expense, while making money for someone else. And the publishers always promise to promote the work – but only enough to avoid being sued for breach of contract.
So the next time you see an ad for writers/bloggers/vloggers that doesn’t offer a salary, or you're offered a 'partnership' in a site, just remember, someone will be making money out of this or the site wouldn’t exist. But it won’t be you. Good luck.
Every Thursday I now present Freshly Doug on Joy 94.9 from Nine till Noon. And this week we got some lively responses from listeners when I posed the following question:
Australian gay website SameSame.com.au are once again asking for nominations for the top 25 influential gays and lesbians.
I want to know who you would put on a ShameShame Top 25 Influential Gays & Lesbians Who Do Jack Schitt for the GLBTI Community.
Head on over to the Freshly Doug blog to find out who they nominated, and make some nominations of your own, with your reasons why - just use the comments field.
Go to Really Long Link to nominate your ShameShame Top 25 Prominent Gay and Lesbian Freeloaders who benefit from the improvements in our rights while having done little or nothing to help gain them.
Once we have a top 25 I'll put the names to air.
And tune in to Freshly Doug every Thursday Nine till Noon on Joy 94.9FM in Melbourne Australia, or online at Really Long Link
Out gay Irish hurling champ Donal Og Cusack
Ireland has begun to grow up. When Boyzone star Stephen Gateley died, he was given a full Catholic funeral in St Laurence O'Toole Church in Dublin, with his civil partner Andy Cowles accorded all the respect of a traditional spouse.
[ Click here to read more ]
Bishop John Shelby Spong
I don't ordinarily post other people's words here, but this is too important not to share
[ Click here to read more ]
Congratulations to Will and PJ for putting together such a great line-up - and all proceeds will go to keeping Joy 94.9, Australia's only full-time GLBTI radio station, on the air.
Call (03) 9699 2949 for tix
[ Click here to read more ]
Deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne Susan Riley
This week Corey Irlam provides some analysis on a couple of issues: the Human Rights Consultation report, what’s likely to happen next, and when; and as the Senate Marriage Enquiry gears up for hearings here in Melbourne on November 9, is this process going to gain us anything, and how we can help it along
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Comments (7)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Doug Pollard
on SHAMESHAME TOP 25 Part II
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
An Australian psychology expert who has been studying emotions has found being grumpy makes us think more clearly. . . . . miserable people are better at decision-making and less gullible . . . . gloominess breeds attentiveness and careful thinking, Professor Joe Forgas told Australian Science Magazine.
He says a grumpy person can cope with more demanding situations than a happy one,
outperform those who are jolly, make fewer mistakes and are better communicators.
Professor Forgas said: " negative moods trigger more attentive, careful thinking, paying greater attention to the external world."
His study also found they were better at stating their case through written arguments. Forgas said a "mildly negative mood may actually promote a more concrete, accommodative and ultimately more successful communication style".