Karol Collymore tells Just Out how it is

Carla Axtman

Kollymore
Blue O Editor (and goddess, that photo says it all) Karol Collymore is a woman I'm just getting to know and admire. I lament having waited so long to make her acquaintance. Karol is not merely a beautiful face. She's smart with a fierce dedication to issues of social justice.

This week she lays it down in an interview with Jaymee R. Cuti for Just Out:

JRC: What is your beat at BlueOregon?

KC: Kari [Chisholm] thought I should write for BlueOregon. I said, “I’m not a writer,” and he said, “Just do it.” Three years later, I’m an editor.

I’ve fallen into the area of writing about things that are left unsaid: race, gender, sexuality. I’m interested in the ideas of equality as something we should have more discussions about, especially in this town.

JRC: Has there been a reader’s response that has stuck with you?

KC: Two years ago I wrote about how being gay wasn’t the new black. Because of my deep passion for gay issues, it was hard for me to say that. Equality is the overriding issue, but it’s not the same issue. If I were a white lesbian, it’s up to me to tell people that I’m a lesbian, but I’m a black woman and I have no protection. I don’t want anyone to live in a closet, but if there’s a space you need to protect yourself as a GLBT person, you can and I can’t. There are many similarities and 100 places where we can walk together, but it’s not the same walk.

Karol is willing to go to places with her writing that many fear to tread. In my book, that's some serious bravery.

Read the rest of the interview here.


Update: Spelling corrected. Sorry Karol..I'm a dork.

  • Jiang (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Definitely very informative. Comparing the posts and dialog about them really lets one know what to expect in the future.

  • (Show?)

    Karol is willing to go to places with her writing that many fear to tread. In my book, that's some serious bravery.

    Amen.

  • (Show?)

    Of course I don't know many black kids who are thrown you of their homes because their family finds out the kid is black either.

    Their are of course differences in the social dynamics and experiences of being non-heterosexual or being a racial minority that has and in some was still discriminated against, but that equal rights for non-heterosexuals is somehow wrongly treading on the sacred grounds of the civil rights moment is a bit off. Not that Kollymore is doing that herself, but some of what she says is similar to a vocal segment of the black community that get pissed that gays even compare their advocacy for their civil rights and push for equality to the cviil rights movement of the 60s.

  • (Show?)

    Psst... Carla... it's Collymore not Kollymore. You made me goof her last name up too.

  • (Show?)

    ugh...

    thrown out of...

    I need to start drinking.

  • (Show?)

    The the "K" on her first name. It throws me too. You'd think that as someone used to using a "K" for both my first and last name for coming up on 45 years now that I'd not be thrown by it. But my Landlord's name is Carol and I've written it so damn many times on checks over the many years that I've rented from her that it's a devil of a habit to break.

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Feb 6, 2009 6:44:56 PM

    Karol is willing to go to places with her writing that many fear to tread. In my book, that's some serious bravery.

    Amen.

    We're reading different posts. I've come to expect knee-jerk positions and the first time I dared take a cutting edge position, she called me a troll.

    Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 6, 2009 6:48:31 PM

    Psst... Carla... it's Collymore not Kollymore. You made me goof her last name up too.

    Speaking of more colly, happy 64th birthday to the late, great, Robert Nesta Marley!

  • (Show?)

    Z, I don't think I've ever called ANYONE a troll. Troll's a nasty word. And the post I wrote on gay v. black was two years ago. And I would write it now.

    I think equality is equality and all people need to jump on the wagon. I just think the experiences of blackness (instant judgement) versus sexual orientation are different. I don't think they are unrelated though. People of color and the GLBT community have 100% of things to agree on and fight for TOGETHER. There does, however, need to be eyes open on both sides of the struggles of each. Please read the entire article so you can see the whole picture I was painting.

  • (Show?)

    And Z, I wasn't directing all my comments at you and I should have made that clear. And I don't think you are troll; you make great comments all over Blue O and I respect them even if I don't agree with all of them.

  • Judge Judy Garland (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JRC: What is your beat at BlueOregon?

    KC: Kari [Chisholm] thought I should write for BlueOregon. I said, “I’m not a writer,” and he said, “Just do it.” Three years later, I’m an editor.

    I’ve fallen into the area of writing about things that are left unsaid: race, gender, sexuality

    For years we've heard that contributors choose the topics and only editorial control is excercised. That sounds a lot different than "having a beat". Which is it? Sounds like some demographics involved in staff selection too. It IS something of the Noah's arc of blogs. Guess that's not by chance.

    Yup. You almost never hear anything being said about race, gender and sexuality.

  • (Show?)

    Last one and I'm going to stop reading.

    Z, You say I'm knee jerk and that could be fair, but I spend entirely too much time thinking about what I want to say for me to agree with that. Saying that I called you a "troll" is bothering me because I think anyone could go through BO with a fine tooth comb and no one would find me even using that word. I want this space to be a place of reasonable discourse and I hope that I won't have messed that up for anyone.

  • zull (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Of course I don't know many black kids who are thrown out of their homes because their family finds out the kid is black either.

    They're very different issues, which is why you can't compare the two forms of discrimination. You can't tell if someone's gay when they walk past you on the street, and if you're black, your parents probably won't throw you out of the house only for that reason. One can hide what they are from those who don't matter to them, the other cannot. But the one that can hide what they are suffers with the knowledge that if they were to be truthful to those who matter, they would be hurt. It's a very different situation with different effects on a person.

    It's not exactly comparable to religious affiliation, obviously, because you can leave a religion but you cannot leave your sexual orientation. Both things you can hide, but one of them is a personal choice and the other is not.

    Sexual orientation discrimination is really its own thing with its own set of problems, and one probably shouldn't try and compare all of those problems with another form of discrimination. Nothing else really compares exactly to it. But the civil rights movement was never only about race, you know. It's for everyone who gets an unfair deal from the social structure through no fault of their own personal choice, but because of what and who they are.

  • (Show?)

    For years we've heard that contributors choose the topics and only editorial control is excercised. That sounds a lot different than "having a beat". Which is it?

    Karol answered that in the interview. Read it again.

  • Jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Karol is an ally and cares deeply, and I sincerely appreciate her values and commitment. Still, that's not the same thing as understanding me, and my walk. As she says herself, “it’s not the same walk.” As I do not fully know her experience, she does not fully know mine, and it shows.

    Karol says that queers have the benefit of being able to hide if needed. She points out the availability of the closet, and “if there’s a space you need to protect yourself as a GLBT person, you can and I can’t.” Karol is misunderstanding and misrepresenting the queer experience. We may believe that hiding and silence keeps us safe, and protects us from discrimination or violence, but silence ultimately degrades our souls. Yes, hiding can provide short-term protection of a sort, but the cost is degradation, and it’s a net loss.

    I once heard, from a feminist spiritual community in Georgia, a frame of reference for grasping this. They recalled that years ago, Act Up came out with a bumper sticker that said : silence = death. And they spoke of how Audrey Lorde (1934 – 1992), black lesbian writer, poet and activist, said in Sister Outsider, “your silence will not protect you.”

    Act Up was right. Audre Lorde was right. Not only will our silence align us with the perpetrators of the same evils we abhor, we become less human when we remain silent.

    My son who is gay, and who was physically battered at local Madison High School for being openly gay in 10th grade, pointed out a truth that should be, but often is not, obvious. When one hides who one is, as a way to be hidden from enemies, one is also hidden from allies, and then the only thing that’s left is being profoundly alone and terrified.

    It’s true that someone who is able to hide is not living the same experience as someone who is, but it’s wrong to somehow think that this is a better station in life. It’s not. It’s just a different walk down the same road.

  • (Show?)

    I did say, my dear Jamie, no one should ever be in closet. My point was, if there is a space of danger, a gay person can retreat if there is fear of lack acceptance. I cannot. That's all.

    I never, ever want someone to be in the closet. The world - especially people of color - need MORE examples to show that yes, Virginia, Black people can be gay.

  • Jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hi Karol,

    I understand that you did not say that one should ever have to be in a closet, and I appreciate that. But I sense from this and other of your posts that you believe that the ability to hide is an advantage. That's where we disagree.

    You say that "if there is a space of danger, a gay person can retreat if there is fear of lack acceptance." I agree that this is true; gay people (or at least some) have this option. But I sense that you believe that this is an advantage that other people who are targets of discrimination do not have.

    In my experience, the protection it provides is usually far less than the damage it does. I understand that this may seem counter intuitive to someone who hasn't experienced it.

  • (Show?)

    I think equality is equality and all people need to jump on the wagon.

    I don't always agree with what you have to say, and most of it revolves around what Jamie points out - just as I don't know what it's like to walk a mile in your shoes, you don't know what it's like to walk a mile in mine.

    But... I absolutely love how you phrased that - "equality is equality and all people need to jump on the wagon." Simply beautiful!

    Even when I disagree with you I know that you're being bluntly honest with us (worth a hell of a lot all on it's own) and that it takes, as Carla said, some serious bravery for you to tackle the subjects that you do.

  • (Show?)

    We each have unique shoes, don't we? I appreciate that because we can learn from one another. I think we are all a little bit right on this one simply because we've walked similar walks. Different, yet exactly the same. I look forward to continuing the conversation.

  • (Show?)

    " But I sense from this and other of your posts that you believe that the ability to hide is an advantage. That's where we disagree."

    As neither black nor gay (but willing to learn on both), it seems like a classic case of grass-is-greener. Nobody has to shout I'm black, step back, get used to it, and that sounds like an advantage to closeted and even repressed gays who wish there was simply no choice to make. On the other hand, when you feel it coloring (pun intended) every public interaction you have and even a lot of private ones, I can see how you'd think being able to fake the funk for a while would be nice. This will sound so limo liberal, but I remember one of the more shocking realizations from Black Like Me was at first how difficult it was to connect the behavior of others to his new skin color. It immediately affected every interaction he'd previously taken for granted, without even being able to get a word out or "present" appropriately for polite company. After a while he just wanted to be able to "get away" from being black, but there was nowhere to go.

    What sucks is that having to be ashamed at all--in any context, absurdly wishing you were some other oppressed minority for their particular coping mechanism--should be a common rallying point for blacks and gays (and black gays, and others) instead of a wedge. Karol puts herself out there and takes the feedback that people give her seriously, and as Carla said she does it on subjects a lot more intimate than "Wyden for HHS?" Pretty brave, but it's crucial.

  • (Show?)
    Karol Collymore wrote: "I just think the experiences of blackness (instant judgement) versus sexual orientation are different"

    I can certainly agree with you, Karol, that the experience of blackness (instant judgment) and queerness (constant paranoia) are different, at least for those GLBT people who can pass for straight. Contrary to your argument, though, this is hardly all of us. There are a whole lot of GLBT folk - commonly derided as sissies, faggots, bulldaggers, and dykes - who don't get invited to the A-list "straight-acting" parties. Instead, they spend their lives subject to "instant judgment" every bit as much as you.

    Where our views begin to part, perhaps, is in the value judgments I hear about the relative subjective experiences - positive and negative - of "instant judgment" versus "constant paranoia", for that segment of the GLBT community to which this distinction might actually apply.

    There are objective differences as well, such as the social distinctions resulting from the difference between the Black experience of ancestral slavery to third to second to struggling for first class citizenship, versus the historic and continuing illegality of one's existence and continual risk - upon discovery - of anything from shunning to immediate physical attack, as still exists for GLBT people in most of the world and much of America to this day.

    Certainly the Black and GLBT communities approach our respective struggles for civil rights from different origins. Where I hope for greater agreement in the future is in common recognition that everyone deserves civil rights, and that no community owns those words, nor is deserving of special or unique respect for their particular struggle to achieve what these words represent.

    Ultimately, a struggle for justice is just that. And once we stop allowing ourselves to focus on the distinctions and differences which divide us, we can bring that much more energy to bear achieving liberty and justice for all.

  • (Show?)

    JJG-- No one here is assigned a beat, by me or anyone else. But certainly each of us write about the things that interest us. Leslie often writes about sustainability, Jenson economics, etc.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Beautiful picture, Karol! I appreciate your contributions here, and hope they will continue.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks Bill R. I got to play model for a day and I think every woman should get to do it. So fun. And thanks everyone for the thought provoking comments.

  • (Show?)

    Karol, you seem to be assigning an advantage to gay people because more of us can "pass".

    What does African-American experience and history tell us about that phenomenon?

  • (Show?)

    As an additional FWIW, we have very self-consciously tried to recruit non-white, non-male contributors. Consider this another opportunity to mention it. There are other aspects of diversity, too, and finding people with specific interests is key to keeping the content at BlueO somewhat broader. We originally had a poet and wanted the content to extend beyond purely political matters, but that's been harder.

    In any case, Karol is a valued editor and the only possible criticism one could have is that we don't hear enough from her.

  • (Show?)

    Doretta, I think as far as an individual keeping herself out of danger, yes, there can be an advantage to being gay v. a person of color. I of course realize that that doesn't apply to every person that is GLB or T nor ever person of color and there is obviously cross over where that just doesn't apply.

    I know the acute fear of walking down the street in the dark and hoping that no one calls the police because a black person is in front of their house. I've had people call my office to complain about seeing a Black person in front of their house and "OH can you believe it!? I don't see that kind around here!" I know intimately how that feels. I would like to hear more about how that feels for other people too.

    Black people also used to - and probably currently do - pass to take advantage of the situations at hand. If Blacks could pass for Whites, they could go to better schools, get better jobs, even simply not working in the fields but working in the house. I wish no one in the closet, race of gay. But do I understand the fear and wanting to retreat in certain situations? Absolutely.

    There's no easy answer - just continuing the discussion. Again, the overarching point is we can work together and start being really open about how we feel individually. I know a Black lesbian might have a whole different point of view as would someone transgendered or a Latino gay male. As Jeff just said, we need more voices.

  • Lee Donnell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    t's not exactly comparable to religious affiliation, obviously, because you can leave a religion but you cannot leave your sexual orientation.

    You most certainly can! Most good churches (I know ours does) have psychologists affiliated with them that can provide treatment. It was a disease up to and including when the American Psychological Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual II" came out. It is the only disease ever dropped for DSM III and IV, under lobbying pressure. Since NOT ONE DISEASE has ever been "rehabilitated" to be "normal", you MUST admit that the situation is at least a little suspicious, no matter what your orientation is.

    23% of the country is Catholic. There are millions of mormons and 15% are strict evangelicals. I am all for having mutual respect, but how respectful is it to flaunt a lifestyle, that the most important moral leader in the world has said the following about? You make us sound like weirdos, but that's 1/2 the country! You will note the Holy Father specifically condemned discrimination against gays. This is the most straight, rational thing I've ever read. Why can't we have a serious discussion about the merits?

    What is often expressed and understood by the term “gender” ultimately ends up being man’s attempt at self-emancipation from creation and the Creator. Man wants to be his own master, and alone – always and exclusively – to determine everything that concerns him. Yet in this way he lives in opposition to the truth, in opposition to the Creator Spirit.

    The great scholastic theologians described marriage, understood as the life-long bond between a man and a woman, as a sacrament of creation, which the Creator himself instituted and which Christ – without modifying the “message” of creation – then made part of the history of his covenant with humanity.

    The Second Vatican Council points out that so-called free love (“amore sic dicto libero”) constitutes a factor that breaks down and destroys marriage because it lacks the constitutive element of conjugal love which is based on the personal and irrevocable consent whereby the spouses give and receive one another mutually, giving rise to a juridical bond and a unit sealed by a public dimension of justice.

    The truth about conjugal love also makes it possible to understand the serious social consequences of the institutionalization of homosexual relations: “We can also see how incongruous is the demand to grant ‘marital’ status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being.

    Marriage cannot be reduced to a condition similar to that of a homosexual relationship: this is contrary to common sense. I cannot fail to mention, on such a solemn occasion, another grave threat that bears upon the future of this Country, one which is already conditioning its life and its capacity for development. I refer to the crisis of the birthrate, the demographic decline and the ageing of the population. Raw statistical evidence obliges us to take account of the human, social and economic problems which this crisis will inevitably impose on Italy in the decades to come. Above all, it encourages – indeed, I would dare to say, forces – citizens to make a broad and responsible commitment to favour a clear-cut reversal of this tendency.

    The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family and much less can the right be attributed to that union to adopt children without a family. To recall the social transcendence of the truth about conjugal love and consequently the grave error of recognizing or even making homosexual relations equivalent to marriage does not presume to discriminate against these persons in any way. It is the common good of society which requires the laws to recognize, favor and protect the marital union as the basis of the family which would be damaged in this way.

  • (Show?)
    Lee Donnell wrote: "You most certainly can! Most good churches (I know ours does) have psychologists affiliated with them that can provide treatment"

    This is highly damaging misinformation. The so-called "reparative therapy" Lee Donnell alludes to is opposed by the following organizations:

    American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Medical Association American Academy of Pediatrics American Counseling Association American Federation of Teachers The Interfaith Alliance National Association of School Psychologists National Association of Social Workers National Association of Secondary School Principals National Education Association People seeking actual information on this subject - as opposed to fundamentalist christian delusions - should start by reading here, then following the extensive citations listed from this article:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_expr.htm

  • Jiang (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Following the development in Iceland? A banking collapse can make strange bedfellows...

  • (Show?)
    You most certainly can! Most good churches (I know ours does) have psychologists affiliated with them that can provide treatment. It was a disease up to and including when the American Psychological Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual II" came out. It is the only disease ever dropped for DSM III and IV, under lobbying pressure. Since NOT ONE DISEASE has ever been "rehabilitated" to be "normal", you MUST admit that the situation is at least a little suspicious, no matter what your orientation is.

    Or perhaps the distinction was based on non-medical bullshit, rather archaic "moral" values from the traditional--often religious--past.

    There's no evidence that "conversions" work, that I know of. Can anyone provide peer reviewed evidence?

  • David Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There's no evidence that "conversions" work, that I know of. Can anyone provide peer reviewed evidence?

    Depends on your sense of "work". Like AA, backsliding happens regularly. If by "work" you mean "keeps you from the fires of Hell", it certainly does work!!!

    Who is going to peer review what our Lord said? Don't think the HS does gig writing.

    Those liberal orgs can say what they want, but it's not the cultural standard. DSM defines "caffein intoxication". Most corps have a "no intoxicating drug use policy" on the job. How many take too many cups of coffee to be a violation? If the APA made the rules, that would be the case. They don't, though.

    The therapy is only "dangerous" to Satan and the evil, the impending extinction that he threatens humanity with, in the guise of civil liberties. Dress it up how you like, but gay people can't have babies. Everything else is a sideshow; that's what life is about. Personally, I think being single over 25, or having no kids for any couple together more than 5 years, should be a criminal offense. Why should you get a free ride when everyone is doing their duty?

    <h2>Who gives a ggd what Iceland does? How many divisions do they have? What's their GDP? Like I said, they don't exist.</h2>

connect with blueoregon