Suze Orman: Coming out sassy!

In this week-end's New York Times Magazine's "Questions For" section, Suze Orman--financial guru, cable-TV host, and wearer of tassled belts--finally spoke out about the issues.

On feminism: "Women don't understand money. They will go into debt to pay for this and that."

On gambling: "I have a million dollars in the stock market, because if I lose a million dollars, I don't personally care."

On Deborah Solomon: "Girlfriend, you don't have a healthy relationship with yourself or your money. You put yourself on sale. You have shame, and you have blame." ("snap")

On her personal life: "K.T. is my life partner. K.T. stands for Kathy Travis. We're going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole life. I'm still a 55-year-old virgin."

Yes, that's right kids! Suze Orman is coming out of the closet! Way to be strong Suze! Way to be proud!

Wait a second, could this be a calculated move to sell your new book? No, no, of course not, you're obviously trying to call attention to the injustices surrounding gay marriage!

"Both of us have millions of dollars in our name. It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes."

Well, there you have it. If you feel like celebrating our noble new lesbian heroine, make sure to tune in to CNBC this Saturday, at 9pm, when Suze talks about her new book, discusses the 8 qualities of a wealthy woman and, most importantly, "viewers ask if they can afford a diamond necklace, a bass fishing boat."

On Casual Tops...

In a recent high-profile discount-clothing-related policy change, Loehmann’s has decided to allow transgendered people to use the store’s change-rooms and bathrooms. A brief article on the decision appeared in New York’s Intelligencer section, which mentions the city’s “ever-brawnier transgender-rights movement.”

It all started, it seems, when Jane Galla walked into the store, looking for “casual tops” for the summer, and Loehmann’s employees wouldn’t let her use the changing rooms. Apparently, they’d also made it clear during an earlier visit that she couldn’t use the women’s bathroom either.

Ever the dedicated Loehmann’s shopper, Jane got in touch with the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, and they managed to “negotiate” an agreement. On Wednesday, Loehmann’s issued a memo (quoted in the Daily News) stating that “if an individual is expressing themselves as a woman by outward appearance, including dress, and that individual would like to use the women’s bathroom or dressing room, the individual may use such women’s facilities.”

While this is exciting news, most practically for those transgendered people who are looking for a marked-down chemise, the Daily News article reflects the mainstream media’s still-tenuous grasp on language relating to transgender politics. The Daily News isn’t really known for its subtle use of language, I know, but calling Galla a “transgender” is both offensive and grammatically incorrect, though likely accidental.

Even if this decision may seem, in a tangible sense, fairly inconsequential to non-Loehmann’s shoppers, it’s a useful reminder that that New York City has outlawed transgender discrimination, and that transgender issues are becoming an ever-more important part of the public discourse. If women like Galla continue standing up for their rights, the day will come when the Daily News might think twice about using the word “trannie” is a headline, or suggesting that transgendered people can “rest easy” now that they can try on clothes in discount clothing store.

Snicker-gate

This has been a remarkably tough week to be gay, hasn't it?

First of all, Isaiah Washington was released from gayhab and went back to work, then Paris Hilton, former grand marshall of the Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade was caught on video tape using the f-word, and now, apocalyptically, Snickers airs a Superbowl commercial showing two men eating a chocolate bar, accidentally kissing, and then ripping out their chest hair.

Obviously this calls for a press release.

The Human Rights campaign, America's largest LGBT organization, issued a statement on Monday asking all of the important questions:

"Is Snickers suggesting that people who eat their candy bars are cavemen? It's an odd market to court, particularly after the Isaiah Washington flap a couple of weeks ago, which clearly showed that there's a strong distate out there for people who portray themselves as anti-gay or holding on to old prejudices and stereotypes."

Weird. When I first saw the ad I thought, holy shit, here's two men kissing during the Superbowl. When did that start happening?

Advertisers have used the same tactic for decades: straight men do something that could be misperceived as gay or threatening to their masculinity, realize their mistake, and react with disgust and horror. But in the past, when a straight man in a commercial did something "gay," it was as mild as accidental gay footsie under the kitchen table or putting on pantyhose. But this was a kiss! On the Superbowl! And the men's hystrionic reaction ends up lampooning their masculinity, rather than reinforcing it.

If the comment board at Adrant is any indication, a lot of conservatives seem to have interpreted the ad in the same way. One person even calls it the work of "activist gays."

I understand that representational politics have their value, and that homophobia shouldn't be used to sell candy bars, but I also think that when it comes to campy commercials that are purposely over-the-top, and only arguably offensive, they're not worth getting worked up about.