The media's consentration on Kaitlyn Hunt being gay is a disservice to society
This week, while trying to keep my head firmly in the sand about Boston, Twisters, Crack, Water, and why the Blackhawks can’t win against Detroit… A girl, currently charged with felonies for dating a girl, can be attacked by parts of her community.
Kaitlyn Hunt, a senior in high school is being charged with felonies in relation to dating another high schooler. Kaitlyn, who was 17 at the time of starting the relationship with the 15 year old, faces criminal charges brought upon her by her girlfriend’s parents.
There seems to be a twist here though, media made or not. The issue of this story is that the girl’s parents have accused Kaitlyn of turning their daughter gay. Although the parents may actually believe this, it should not be the sole focus of the story.
Yes, I do believe that the parents are putting a lot of homophobic venom into their pressing of charges and of following up to ban Kaitlyn from her own school. However, this type of binary thinking, this categorizing needs to stop.
The media and others tend to put things into a “gay” or “not gay” box. Once Kaitlyn is put into the “gay box” then what does that mean for her and everyone else? It becomes a “gay issue” which means some can then ignore the violation because “God says gay people are evil”.
Once you put a label on something, there can be opposition based solely upon the label and not the merits. What becomes something unique in one individual loving another then becomes something box-able.
Why know anything about Kaitlyn Hunt at all? Once the “gay box” is created, she ceases to become a person, but rather an object. If she lets the media put her in the box, then society will know how to deal with it.
The media, the government, and society in general put people in these boxes. Hell, we do it to ourselves (research history on politically correctness in the United States to see more on this). Once this box is created by someone within the ruling portion of the system, it is easy to extend control of someone out of that system and it is also harder for this individual to get out.
So hard in fact, that the system will make you want to put yourself in the box. We can sell ad space, clothes, music, even identities based upon those boxes. You aren’t in a box? You better get one! Don’t be the person not in a box. The box is good. Now that you’re in a box, we’ve got you. There is always profit to be made in stereotyping.
There is a sickness in society that says, from a commercial point of view, a box is good. You are in the “gay rights box”? Great, we have retailers pointing directly at you! You are in the “Homophobic box?” I know a great chicken place who would love to serve you.
Maybe you are short and you are told you need to be in the “Little Person” box because it is politically correct to say that instead of something else. Is it? Who made it so? Who sold it after it was made? Who profits?
It’s us vs. them. There is more than just discrimination against gay people, but it sure is easier to manage for the rest of society to segment discrimination. If you can separate the masses and put them in as many different, smaller boxes you can, then people can be turned against each other.
It’s hard to go against a United Front of citizens fed up with being mistreated, but why go against them if you can create, via labeling in the guise of correctness a struggle or separation that does not truly exist.
Who marched with King, only black people? King knew if people were allowed to be put in boxes, or even more worse, desired to put themselves in a box, then the movement was lost. The upper will play the middle against the lower… Always.
Ask anyone who through a government survey had to pick between “White Hispanic”, “Dark Hispanic” and “Hispanic”. If there isn’t an active force trying to separate or splinter groups into lesser forces in order to keep the middle fighting the lower for the benefit of the upper.
I had a friend, we’ll name him Billy. Billy was a high school senior who was dating a freshman. Billy for those keeping score was 18 and the freshman Samantha, was 15. Billy met Samantha when he was 17. They dated with the knowledge of her single-mom parental unit. The mother didn’t say anything negative about Billy.
Billy and Samantha hung out together with Samantha’s mother as an open couple. Then one snowy day, Billy refused to get Samantha’s mom cigarettes during a blizzard. Billy at that time had turned 18, but still finishing out his senior year. At least he would have, if he didn’t end up in jail under felony charges brought up by the mother.
Am I changing the gender of Kaitlyn to give a “traditional” view? No. I really knew Billy. Samantha’s mother really did wait until he was 18 to report him after he refused to get her cigarettes in a snow storm. He really did go to jail and the mother did eventually go to jail as well.
I brought up Billy because I wanted to address the people who are concerned with “if it was a guy, would it have changed your view?” Does a parent have a right to protect her child? Sure. Does the parent seem self-centered and vindictive when she exercises that right only when things upset her in selfish ways? Yeah, a bit.
Do Billy and Kaitlyn have something in common? A few things actually. They were both in love; they were both in a committed, consensual relationship. They were both set-up for selfish reasons by a parent. They were both victims of a law applied un-evenly in the area. They both had people fight for them and hopefully they will both live eventful and full lives afterwards.
What Kaitlyn and Billy went through isn’t a “Gay” or “Straight” thing; it is a “people” thing. If we can all remember that, then maybe there’s hope.