MTV's movie about Matthew Shepard

[Guest shadow]

This weekend I saw the movie that MTV put together showing the events that lead to Matthew Shepards death. It was a really good movie, but now I am really bummed out. That was so sad and tragic. I don't know if I should cry or act out in rage.

 

One thing that I find interesting is that if Matthew Shepard were alive today, he and I would both be the same age.

 

Anyway, I was wondering what everyone here thought of the whole tragic incident.

 

I believe that Matthew Shepard is definitely a martyr. But I don't take too much comfort in that belief because I know that he did not have any choice as to whether or not he could become a martyr. Also, in this era of the Bush presidency (with his views) and the conservatism that comes with it, can his sacriface help to bring about any positive changes in legislature, for instance? How about in the military where soldiers are still being forced to resign because of their sexual preference?

 

What do you all think?

[Guest Jocoluver]

Forget it! There will be no improvement in gay life, especially in the military, under George W and his pal John Ashcroft. In fact things may very well get worse in military. A tiny bright spot is Cheney's lesbian daughter; but given the atrocious treatment by her mother (bitch Laura), forget that, too. If ever a mother looked like she'd like to drown her own child, see Laura's reaction when asked on nat'l TV (?by Diane Sawyer) about her gay daughter - Medea personified. With Ashcroft and the religious right there very well may be a return of witch hunts for faggots.

[Guest shadow]

Thanks for the post, Jocoluver. I have the same fears you have.

 

Man, I was I had seen that interview that you were talking about. I have always wanted to know Cheney's views on his daughter.

 

How about this for a weird thought. Does anyone believe that the more conservative the government becomes about gay issues, the more likely it will be that closeted guys will turn to using escorts for the discretion?

 

Anyway, I'm still curious to hear more opinions about what happened to Matthew Shepard.

If I'm lucky, I'll get more replies to keep this post from going to the second page and effectively dying.

[Guest regulation]

I enjoyed the film. It seems to me that the film did not make the point that the young man was assaulted because of his sexual orientation, however. The writer seemed to think that the point of the crime was robbery and that the beating occurred because the perpetrators were drunk, habitually violent and frustrated by the fact that the crime netted them very little money. The victim's sexual orientation came into it only when the perps were caught and claimed that they assaulted the victim because he came on to them. The media then turned what had been an act of senseless violence into a purposeful hate crime. I don't know whether that is what happened, but that is what the film portrayed.

 

As to the future of gay rights and hate crimes legislation, I recall mentioning in a thread that appeared here before the election that if Bush won he would turn the Justice Department over to the Radical Right as a reward for their support. Others scoffed at this, but with the nomination of Ashcroft that is exactly what has happened. It wasn't a feat of clairvoyance on my part -- I predicted W. would do that because that is exactly what his father did in 1989. Here are some more easy predictions. Ashcroft will be confirmed. Key subcabinet posts at Justice will also go to people with whom Pat Robertson is totally comfortable. The Bush Justice Department will not support new hate crimes legislation. Federal pornography prosecutions, including gay porn and Web porn, will increase.

 

By the way, Dick Cheney's wife's name is Lynne, not Laura. She holds a PhD and is a former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am sure she loves her daughter as much as any other mother. She does have a tendency to get very angry when reporters ask her about her daughter's sexual orientation -- I think that is the reaction you saw.

[Guest shadow]

I believe that the writers of the MTV movie about

Matthew Shepard wanted to show to the audience how the complicated a hate crime is.

 

For example, during the industrial revolution, many Blacks moved from the South to the Northern states in search of employment. Many Blacks found jobs working inside of manufacturing plants where employers hired many of them because the employers could get away with paying Blacks significantly less than their White counterparts. Since many Blacks who worked in those plants did not have much money, and because many places were very discriminary in their hiring practices, there were not many choices for Blacks in turns of where to work. Many Whites during that time also did not have much money so they were very much in need of jobs as well. These Whites saw Blacks as unfairly stealing their jobs. This issue of economic hardships mixed with their own prejudices lead to much violence against Blacks from the Whites.

 

Also, look at the persecution of Jews during War World II. It was the mixture of economic hardships that Germans were going through along with their own prejudices against Jews that lead Germans's rob from, dehumanize, and ultimately persecute Jews. During that time, Germany was going through a monumental depression.

 

It is this mixture of poverty and prejudice that has contributed significantly to the hate actions that have occured through out history.

 

Now,how does this relate to Matthew Shepard? If I interpreted the movie correctly, the two perpetrators in the film were going through economic problems of their own. They saw Matthew Shepard before approaching him. The MTV writers made it blatantly clear that the the perpetrators perceived from Matthew Shepard's appeareance that he was a gay male who looked like he had money on him. They singled Matthew Shepard out. If the perception of Matthew Shepard as a gay male, along with all of the stereo types that go along with that impression, was not a factor in the perpetrators choosing him then why did they not choose some one else? The prejudice was always there, it just needed a reason to come out. The economic problems was all the reason that the perpetractors needed to act on their prejudices. That was my point in my two previous examples. If prejudice is there, all it needs is some catalyst for it to become an act of hate.

[Guest regulation]

>If the

>perception of Matthew Shepard as

>a gay male, along with

>all of the stereo types

>that go along with that

>impression, was not a factor

>in the perpetrators choosing him

>then why did they not

>choose some one else?

 

 

Because he was the only person in that bar who looked as though he had more than ten cents to his name.

[Guest shadow]

ok Regulation,

 

Here is where we draw the line.

 

You say that Matthew Shepard looked like the only person in the bar who had money. I say that he wasn't the only one.

 

You say that the fact that Matthew Shepard was gay had nothing to do with him being singled out. I say that the fact that Matthew Shepard was gay and looked like he had some money was the reason why he was singled out.

 

It doesn't seem to me that we will ever be able to convince each other otherwise, so I will leave it at that. We can respectfully agree to disagree. I can live with that.

 

 

 

 

 

hmmm...it looks like HooBoy removed his thread.

[Guest regulation]

>You say that Matthew Shepard looked

>like the only person in

>the bar who had money.

>I say that he wasn't

>the only one.

>

 

So who were the other bar patrons who looked like upscale types? How many were there? MTV reran the film yesterday evening and I watched the bar scene again. I stand by my description of it.

 

>You say that the fact that

>Matthew Shepard was gay had

>nothing to do with him

>being singled out.

 

Try to remember that we are discussing a fictionalized account of the events, not the events themselves. Neither of us knows what was in the minds of the perpetrators. Nor does the scenarist of that film. If you want to know what really happened from their point of view, check back issues of local and national papers for interviews with the perpetrators or get a copy of the transcript of their plea hearing.

 

>It doesn't seem to me that

>we will ever be able

>to convince each other otherwise,

>so I will leave it

>at that. We can respectfully

>agree to disagree. I can

>live with that.

>

 

Peachy.

[Guest shadow]

regulation,

 

I know how to do research. That is what I do everyday as a graduate student. I actually gave the same lecture that you are trying to give to me to a friend of mine on a totally different subject not too long ago. My goal was to give an opinion based on what I saw. A common practice in doing research is to state the criteria on which you base your opinion.

I clearly gave what criteria I based my asumptions on from the beginning. If you read one of my earlier posts, I stated that the views that I would write about the Matthew Shepard case was based on the MTV program. You did the same. From my point of view, the writers of the movie as well as the organizers of the MTV progam that came after the movie were trying to show that the perpetrators' perception of Matthew Shepard as a gay male was a VERY significant factor in him being singled out as a victim. For some reason, you disagree. I could go much more into detail and give you proof to support my argument, and thereby prove you wrong, but instead I have decided to respect your decision to disagree and leave the matter at that.

 

If you might have guessed, the main issue that I am trying to get at is Hate Crime Legislation. Because of my view of the perpetrators as singling Matthew Shepard out partly because of their perception of him as being a gay male, their crime against is an example of a hate crime. That is what the writers of the movie and of the following program by MTV were trying to express. Most hate crimes are not as extreme as Matthew Shepard's, but his tragedy is an example of what constitutes a hate crime. The program goes further than just showing the crime, it shows how events and beliefs can lead up to the crime occuring.

 

Now the majority of this thread has turned out to become a tennis match between regulation and myself. That was not my intent when I started this thread. I was hoping to hear views from many people on what happened to Matthew Shepard. If this thread continues to be a tennis match between Regulation and myself, and no one else wants to share their views, then we should just let the thread die out.

[Guest regulation]

>I know how to do research.

>That is what I do

>everyday as a graduate student.

 

Then why don't you do some? Find out what the perpetrators and others involved in the case really had to say about their motives and share it with us. I am sure many would be interested.

 

>I stated that the views

>that I would write about

>the Matthew Shepard case was

>based on the MTV program.

>You did the same.

 

No, I didn't. As I made clear in my first post, I am expressing an opinion about the film, not about the events on which it is based. Frankly, I think it makes little sense to base one's opinion of an event on nothing more than a "docu-drama" about that event. When I went to graduate school watching MTV did not qualify as "research."

 

 

From

>my point of view, the

>writers of the movie as

>well as the organizers of

>the MTV progam that came

>after the movie were trying

>to show that the perpetrators'

>perception of Matthew Shepard as

>a gay male was a

>VERY significant factor in him

>being singled out as a

>victim. For some reason, you

>disagree. I could go much

>more into detail and give

>you proof to support my

>argument, and thereby prove you

>wrong, but instead I have

>decided to respect your decision

>to disagree and leave the

>matter at that.

>

 

You could answer the two very simple questions I posed about your argument in my last post, but for some reason you don't want to answer them.

[Guest Shooter]

Hate crimes legislation on a 4 year hold.

 

Mr. Bush, being ever the champion of 'states' rights' (Funny, how he was quick to usurp Florida's as his very first suit by-passed all state courts and went directly to a federal court to stop, interestingly enough, what he signed into law in Texas. Florida must not be a state yet), has vowed that it should be up to the states to pass hate crimes legislation protecting gays if they so choose. In other words, if Alabama thinks it's okay to beat a fag, tie him to a fence post and leave him to die and Florida does not, you simply need to make sure you're across the state line! (I know. Florida and Alabama had nothing to do with Matthew. I just thought I'd pick on them today. Besides, it segs well into my next point.)

 

Of course, if it were still up to Alabama, blacks wouldn't go to school with whites or ride in the same seats on the bus or drink from the same drinking fountain. And I'm sure interracial marriages would still be punishable by dragging the black guy through the streets tied to the back of Billy Bob's pickup. So let's be glad Bush wasn't around crying 'states' rights' when the civil rights movement for blacks was all the rage. (Please don't get me wrong. Racism is present to some degree everywhere and always will be...in both directions. Not just white against black and not just in Alabama. It's just not acceptable to march at a heterosexual person's funeral with a sign saying 'God hates blacks' or 'He'll rot in hell for being white' but society doesn't care if it's done at a gay man's funeral.)

 

For the next four years, hell has a better chance of freezing over than protection from hate crimes for gays has of becoming law!

 

Then again, as I've been told, every crime is a hate crime and therefore gays don't deserve special protection. That would be the equivalent of preferential treatment and then what? Hiring quotas? Gay desegregation in our schools. Oops! Sorry, got carried away. At that age, very few are out so we're already integrated. (Or is that infiltrating? Spreading our gay agenda? Turning others gay?)

 

Sorry to interject into your debate but you two seemed to be getting at each other so I thought I'd throw a distraction at you.

[Guest shadow]

AAARRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

 

Regulation,

 

Why do I feel like I'm in a staring contest with some child?!

 

Do I have to read through MTV's movie and the program that came after it line, and then summarize all of the periodical data for your benefit? This while I am beginning to take personal attacks from you? You pick and choose some parts of what I say and totally ignore the other parts.

 

There are some many parts in regulation's posts that I could attack. But as I stated earlier, I did not start this thread to create a debate between regulation and myself. I started this thread to hear the opinions of many people. Right now, 9 out of 12 posts to this thread are from regulation and myself. If thats how its going to be, then whats the point in continuing this thread?

 

I do appreciate the comments of the individual who added something to this thread besides the input of regulation and myself.

 

Will this not end?!

[Guest regulation]

>Why do I feel like I'm

>in a staring contest with

>some child?!

>

 

This is just a guess, but I think it's because you aren't used to arguing with someone who won't give in and let you have your way when you stamp your feet and raise your voice and display the other aspects of a temper tantrum.

 

 

>Do I have to read through

>MTV's movie and the program

>that came after it line,

>and then summarize all of

>the periodical data for your

>benefit?

 

Nope, all you have to do is answer the two very simple questions that I posed in my last post but one. Or, if you're unable to answer them, you could simply admit that you were wrong.

 

 

This while I am

>beginning to take personal attacks

>from you? You pick and

>choose some parts of what

>I say and totally ignore

>the other parts.

 

I don't know if anyone has explained this to you, but I'm under no obligation to respond to you other than as and when I feel like it.

 

>

>There are some many parts in

>regulation's posts that I could

>attack.

 

So you said earlier. But so far you don't seem to be coming up with much.

 

 

But as I stated

>earlier, I did not start

>this thread to create a

>debate between regulation and myself.

>I started this thread to

>hear the opinions of many

>people. Right now, 9 out

>of 12 posts to this

>thread are from regulation and

>myself. If thats how its

>going to be, then whats

>the point in continuing this

>thread?

>

 

If you don't want to continue with it, don't. Is someone standing next to your computer with a shotgun and forcing you to type these posts against your will?

 

 

>Will this not end?!

 

See above.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Hate crimes legislation on a 4 year hold.

 

Please don't be sorry about expressing your opinion. You have every right to do so.

 

Frankly, I'm not able to get too worked up about hate crimes legislation. Beating someone so severely that he ends up dead is already a serious crime in every state, no matter what the personal characteristics of the victim. And although I deprecate the notion of using a docu-drama as a reliable account of what actually occurred in the Shepard case, I think I'm on pretty safe ground in believing that the sort of people who perpetrated that crime are not the sort who think carefully about the possible consequences of their actions before acting, which means that such legislation is not likely to have a tremendous deterrent value.

 

On the other hand, I see no harm in passing such laws, and I do have to wonder about the motives of people who resist doing so. If they aren't trying to defend people who commit crimes in order to express hatred, then what are they trying to do?

[Guest shadow]

RE: Hate crimes legislation on a 4 year hold.

 

LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-01 AT 02:01PM (EST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-01 AT 01:58 PM (EST)

 

After reading regulation's last response and attack on me, I was finally ready to give in and do the same to him, thereby abandoning my reason for starting this thread. But with the many things happening to slow down when I could respond, (this site's shut down, being incredibly busy with work and social life)I changed my mind. I've had time to take a step back realized that I have accomplished what I set out to do when starting this thread. I got opinions from different people on the tragic event of Matthew Shepard's murder, MTV's portray of the murder, and the call in special that MTV did after the movie. I did not, however get nearly as many responses as I had hoped. Nor did I get to go into details on the much more common but less serious hate crimes that occur. That happens. MTV highlighted many of those in another special.

 

I appreciate Shooter, Jocoluver, HooBoy (even HooBoy inputed an opinion, but then removed it), and regulation for your opinions in regards to the many issues associated with the Matthew Shepard tragedy. Thank you.

 

Again, as I stated earlier, I will not go down to the level of pointless attack as regulation has brought this to. This includes not describing how out dated his research techniques are, how misguided his views on Pop Culture are, how he has single mindedly ignored other information that I have supplied in this thread, and how condescending, childish, and down right rude his responses have been ("peachy"?).

 

I also will not make any assumptions, based on his responses, about the type of mail order institution he must have received his advance degree from, nor will I express my views on what I hope regulation is not doing proffessionally.

 

I will suggest,however that he do research on the issue of hate crimes himself and not have me spoon feed the information to him.

That is assuming that regulation is an adult and is capable of such a thing.

 

I have to admit that regulation has been correct with at least one point. No one has been holding a gun to my head to force me to write anything to this post. It definitely has not turned out exactly the way I had hoped it would, but as I stated before, that happens. Anyway, I have said my piece. With the exception of anyone else besides regulation adding their input, I will not add anymore responses.

 

Of course, if for some reason regulation wishes to respond to me directly, he is more than welcome to send an e-mail.

 

Thats it from me for now. I hope that no one here becomes the victim or instigator of a hate crime. It is possible for any of us to be on either side.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Hate crimes legislation on a 4 year hold.

 

>LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-01

>AT 02:01 PM (EST)

>

>LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-01

>AT 01:58 PM (EST)

>

>Again, as I stated earlier, I

>will not go down to

>the level of pointless attack

>as regulation has brought this

>to. This includes not describing

>how out dated his research

>techniques are, how misguided his

>views on Pop Culture are,

>how he has single mindedly

>ignored other information that I

>have supplied in this thread,

>and how condescending, childish, and

>down right rude his responses

>have been ("peachy"?).

>

 

Gee, I sure am glad to learn that you refuse to engage in personal attacks. By the way, do you know how to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?