2007.02.25
San Francisco is not Happy Land
My brother sent me an email today and refered to San Francisco (I assume he meant SF) as “happy land”. Though I’m sure he meant it as a joke the sentiment reflects a wider perception that is wholy inaccurate about the City.
SF isn’t exactly “happy land” yet somehow we’ve gotten this amazingly bad reputation around the country as some liberal hippie land. This isn’t helped when Gavin Newsom tried to skip the law and marry homosexuals and then got caught having an affair. It’s also kind of silly when San Francisco tries to ban guns in the City.
But this place is little different from many of the other places I’ve lived like Prague, Washington DC or Seoul. It’s a big city with a diverse population from many backgrounds. In a country where every politician ends a speech with, “God bless America” or face not being re-elected, there are probably more churches here than anywhere else I’ve lived. There are 272 churches according to this site. That’s almost six churches per square mile! Even our previous Bishop was chosen as one of the highest Vatican officials.
Everyone I know here hates the hippies even though their legacy lingers like a stink. It gets really old reading idiot conservative pundits going off on San Francisco values all the time. Declaiming people with “San Francisco values” is about as accurate as stating people with Southern values are uneducated, inbred, poor, waiting for the Rapture and hold on to quaint value systems like slavery.
I’ve ranted about this before and I’m sure I’ll rant about it in the future. San Francisco just isn’t what most people think it is. I’ll probably keeping writing about it until my fingers are nubs or they finally “get it”. I have the sad feeling that the nubs will come first.
Categorized: grrr san francisco thoughts
You can follow any responses to this entry with a RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
10 Responses to “San Francisco is not Happy Land”
- Mookee says (February 25th, 2007 at 19:39:47 )
Didn’t we cover this already? About the perception of “family values” or something like that. I don’t remember if I posted it or if it was a comment…whatever, not that big a deal.
I get the joke, where the term “Happy Land” comes from. It’s actually kind of funny to me.
Did anyone see the article in today’s paper about the loss of culture in the Castro (or something like that). San Francisco is apparently going to spend 100K to try and keep the Castro gay.
It’s kind of interesting when one thinks about it. I don’t have a problem with the Castro being a gay community, but you can’t tell a person where they can and cannot live.
Heterosexuals “are welcome as long as they understand this is our community,” said Adam Light, a leader in the Castro Coalition, a group formed eight months ago to address the shifts in the neighborhood in recent years.
The article also stated that the Castro isn’t the only gay community in the country that is seeing this change, but is likely one of the few that will survive the “transformation.”
Communities are what they are because people want to be there for some reason. It may be cheap, it may be because it’s what they know, whatever. Kudos to the gay community for creating a neighborhood that people with families want to live in. I’m not sure what the problem is. If the new influx was trying to change the Castro intentionally, then there may be a discussion (though I’m not sure what one could do about it). The people that are moving there are simply moving into an area they enjoy, I’d think they’d want to keep it as is. But that’s me.
- douglas says (February 26th, 2007 at 20:11:44 )
Except for the occasional hate crime, gay neighborhoods are some of the safest neighborhoods with little violent criminal activity. And because homosexuals tend to spend more money on themselves thier neighborhoods also tend to be more affluent. It’s no surprise to me that families would want to move in.
Anyways, The Castro is only one neighborhood among many in the City. Yes, without it San Francisco would be a much different place but it’s by no means representative of everything San Francisco. That’s one of many reasons why calling it “Happy Land” is rather misleading and disingenuous.
- NHK says (February 26th, 2007 at 20:40:01 )
Uh, gay people have families, too, Mookee. If you’re talking about “traditional” heterosexual families, that’s fine, too, as long they don’t try and turn the Castro into the suburbs - “Ooh, those two guys are making out hot and heavy on the street! Think about my children and take it inside!” - I’ve seen very similar arguments in print over the last few years. My answer, “Do you have the same complaint about a het couple making out in public? No? Fuck off back to Concord, then, post-haste. You want the suburbs? Fine, move to one, but don’t try and turn the city into one.” *That’s* the only real problem I see. That said, I doubt the majority of heterosexuals who have moved to the Castro in recent years feel that way; in fact, assimilation of gay people into “mainstream” San Francisco culture is a logical progression given the leaps and bounds gay people have made here over the past several decades. Yeah, I wax nostalgic for the ‘old’ Castro, but that was the Castro of 15 or so years ago, before it became a tedious gay theme-park/shopping mall. Whatever, times change. Gay people no longer need a ghetto in this town.
As for the original post…Dugh, I agree with you on all counts except for your criticism of Mr. Newsom. Gay people pay the same taxes as straight people, therefore, they should have the same right to civil marriage as straight people do. The precedent was set in the 60s when African-Americans fought for and gained civil rights. Newsom stood up and did the right thing for his constituency *and* snubbed stupid lawmakers and their biggoted legislation to boot. Change doesn’t happen by people following the rules, and that’s not always a bad thing.
As for Newsom’s affair, I couldn’t care less. Clinton, Newsom, whatever. As long as he can continue to perform his official duties effectively, his personal life should have no bearing on his public life. Assuming he completes his alcohol rehab successfully, he’s still got my vote.
The hippies *do* annoy me, though. :)
- NHK says (February 26th, 2007 at 20:55:58 )
I mant to say that “Change doesn’t *always* happen by people following the rules, and that’s not always a bad thing.”
- Mookee says (February 26th, 2007 at 21:01:31 )
Did I say gay people don’t have families? Have I become so obscure that I don’t get my own humor anymore? What part of anything I said was offensive to anyone?
Whatever, if I’ve unintentionally offended, then perhaps I have truly reached the point of master … when one succeeds without even trying.
- douglas says (February 26th, 2007 at 21:20:34 )
Mookee, you’re not really offending anyone here. Get over yourself.
NHK, you should know by now that I’m a proponent for gay marriage for some of the same reasons you point out. I just don’t think that breaking the law here in San Francisco is going to do much about it. Get the mayor of Atlanta to start marrying homosexuals and you’ve got something, though.
As for Newsom’s affair, I really don’t care that much either. I think the worst part of it is that he did it with his very good friend’s wife. That, to me, says something about his morality. Of course it wouldn’t have been an affair if it weren’t someone’s wife, but the friend thing… I find that rather repugnant.
- NHK says (February 26th, 2007 at 21:34:45 )
No, Mookee, you didn’t offend me at all. In fact, I reflexively indicted you as a result of skimming the last part of your comment instead of actually reading it thoroughly. Sorry. I don’t often get a chance to spew gay vitriol these days and I got carried away. Oooh, look! Now I’m an apologist. Don’t see that too often.
Anyway, the hippy bloodfart upstairs is playing Enya or some such shite on her guitar, so I must scour my iTunes® library for some death-metal, now.
Later.
- NHK says (February 26th, 2007 at 21:57:50 )
Dugh, I thought you’d disavowed cynicism.
It doesn’t matter where Newsom broke the law, he broke it for *absolutely* the right reasons and - I’ll say it again - I feel he represented his constituency honestly. He set an *example* for progressive politicians in Atlanta and elsewhere. The gay marriages in San Francisco galvanized a lot of people in other areas (and yes, I know because I’ve spoken to some of them). Yeah, it was a largely symbolic gesture, but aside from the fact that it meant a lot to whole bunch of people - myself included, it was the right thing to do, period. And the fact that he got away with it on a local level - that people here seemed largely supportive of his actions - makes me incredibly proud to be a San Franciscan.
Breaking laws in general=stupid.
Breaking extremely stupid, unfair, unsound and arguably unconstitutional laws that help absolutely no one and harm many=GOOD.
- NHK says (February 26th, 2007 at 22:20:26 )
Oops, hit submit before I was finished…
By the way, Dugh, I wasn’t in any way trying to imply that I think you aren’t a proponent of gay marriage; I know you are.
From a pragmatic standpoint, yes, I can see how one might be inclined to shrug off “illegal” gay marriages in San Francisco as a largely pointless ‘protest’; on the other hand, I think it’s high time crooked lawmakers who pander to the church at the expense of the state and the people they supposedly represent were publicly shamed by actions that send a message of “no confidence” - particularly when these messages are sent by others in positions of political power.
- douglas says (February 26th, 2007 at 22:36:59 )
Fair enough. I know better than to argue this one because essentially we agree. It’s not like I haven’t submitted my own Constitutional Amendment proposal…
