From the week of October 8, 2009

“Better Gay Than GLAAD,” Kenny Be, October 1

Don’t Get Mad, Get GLAAD

So I sat down for breakfast at a local hangout here in Englewood to enjoy the October 1 Westword, and lo and behold, what did I find? Ah, yes, more drama-causing fags. Who’da thunk?! As a queer man of forty years and an activist, I have seen much back-fighting and backbiting in our community. It has always annoyed me greatly. We’ve made so many strides in the past few decades from being honest and forthright about who we are and who we love. It has long been my opinion that when you have two (or more) groups fighting, it very much hurts the entire community. The feud between GLAAD and Kenny Be that prompted “I’d Rather Be Gay Than GLAAD” is no exception.

I believe GLAAD’s goal is to protect LGBTQ people from defamation, yet they violate their own agenda by nationally shaming cartoonist Kenny Be. It sounds like GLAAD is being more than a little hypocritical — not unlike the religious Bible-thumpers with their God loves/hates you. Meanwhile, Kenny Be, a gay cartoonist, strikes back from his media platform. Wow! Way to go, Kenny! I have no clue how long it took you to draw a two-page cartoon blasting GLAAD for clearly inappropriate behavior with, well, clearly inappropriate behavior, but it would seem that time would have been better spent in talks working out your differences with the elites at GLAAD. Oh, yeah, and “suck my balls” goes so much further than “what you did was highly inappropriate.”

So we have the big bad GLAAD against the killer Kenny Be, with the woahsome Westword on the side getting its kicks (and readership) out of the drama. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You need to quit fighting and get on with your respective tasks. You need to quit using the media for stupid drama and stop making us all look bad: You just do not attack family!?

Mike, a disappointed fag

Englewood

Editor’s note: For much more on Kenny Be’s better-gay-than-GLAAD crusade, go to the Kenny Be category on the Latest Word blog.

Recent Westword Covers

Covering the Bases

The September 24 cover with the pit bull puppy in a noose was provocative, interesting, visually striking and hilarious (well, to me, anyway). I was telling some co-workers about what a great run of covers I’ve seen from Westword of late. I also went on to say that except for the irritating illustrations of that talentless Kenny Be, Westword really does a bang-up job with its covers.

I wish I would have written you sooner. Last week, I got to look at a mindless cover that a fifth-grader would be too embarrassed to turn in to his art teacher. At least I can skip over Kenny Be between the covers. Why must you subject readers to his shlock, especially on the cover?

Eric Wilks

Centennial

I have read Westword regularly since I arrived here in 1979. I have enjoyed the edgy humor and satire. But the September 24 cover crossed a line of decency, and I feel compelled to protest. I am no fan of pit bulls, but employing the lynching motif visually was especially terrible. As an historian (at Metro State) who repeatedly describes the long, sad history of American interracial relations, which involved horrible lynchings, I find you guilty here of staggering insensitivity.

Thomas L. Altherr

Conifer

“Drink Up!,” Patricia Calhoun,

September 17

Thirsting for Justice

You will probably receive many responses to S. William Stevens’s letter in the October 1 issue that are more eloquent than mine, but I must say my piece. Westword is not fighting for the right of women to get free drinks, but rather for the right of bar owners and operators (probably men) to run a promotion that, as has been said repeatedly, appeals to men. Second, the main point of “equality” is “equal pay for equal work” and other workplace factors, such as employers not viewing a woman who has children as somehow a less valuable employee than a man who has children. It seems that alimony would work both ways if the job situation were completely fair. I doubt there would be a lawsuit for a men-drink-free night; it just would probably not be great for business.

Finally, no one ever said that men and women are identical – or if anyone did ever say that, it was an old-fashioned kind of feminist. Men are stronger than women on average, and while an abusive woman should still be accountable to the same laws, she’s clearly less likely to do as much damage when she smacks Mr. Stevens than vice versa (unless he is a very small and weak man, which may explain his attitude).

Are Mr. Stevens and Mr. Horner really that upset about the fact that no one is buying them a drink or opening a door for them? It seems that each of these men has been treated unfairly by a woman in their past, and if they were coming from a less bitter (and, in Mr. Horner’s case, greedy) place, perhaps their point would be taken more seriously. We do live in a hypocritical world with many double standards.

Anna Nunez

Denver

I’m finally getting around to making a few corrections regarding Ms. Calhoun’s ladies’ night story. Judge Campbell said nothing regarding a ruling on public accommodation in my case against Westword. His ruling had to do with the ambiguities of two words written in the law: “direct” and “indirect.”

What’s totally unfair about the Division of Civil Rights reneging on its initial ruling that Westword is a place of public accommodation and therefore accountable to civil rights laws, as my complaint pointed out, is that subsequent to the ruling, Westword was asked by the division to enter mediations, but they ignored that request. Then, after several months, the division closed the case, saying “mediation efforts have been unsuccessful.” What?! There were no efforts.

Several weeks later, and right out of the blue, I was told by the division’s director, Señor Esteban Chavez, that the initial ruling had been reversed. I wasn’t even aware that a new ruling was up for consideration; I was still waiting for mediation. Subsequently, I have sent letters of protest to the governor, attorney general and members of the Civil Rights Commission, but I haven’t received a single reply. I guess that in Colorado, my civil rights as a white guy don’t count.

Near the tail end of Calhoun’s column, she finds hope and joy in the notion that future ladies’ night rulings will hinge on “intent to discriminate” rather than the letter of the law. I’d like to remind Ms. Calhoun that the Civil Rights Commission’s current resolution regarding ladies’ night is that those promotions “may not involve price differentials or other differential treatment based on a protected class, whatever the intent.” However, knowing this civil rights crowd seems to flow with the wind, I know this resolution could be arbitrarily reversed at any time if enough angry bar owners and thirsty women looking for favors line up at their door. If that happens, I hope someone opens a Christian-and-White-People-Only nightclub in LoDo and justifies it by claiming, “It’s a business decision. I have no intention of discriminating against anybody.”

Steve Horner

stevehornerbooks.com