Hey, there! Log in / Register
Globe finally details the case of the murdered gay man in Dorchester
By adamg on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 5:04pm
Fatal stabbing shakes city's gays.
The article comes nine days after Daniel Yakovleff was found dead in a Savin Hill apartment and five days after the Globe got scooped on this Boston story by the Hartford Courant.
Riggs is not impressed. In fact, he rails against the article, starting with the lead paragraph, which details the "effeminate" mannerisms of a friend of Yakovleff's.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Oh, the sissy
I want to point out a couple things.
First, in an earlier post about this, one commenter seemed to "chew out" another commenter who mentioned that the victim of this crime was well-known in the local bars.
"Where'd you find the info ... that he was well known in the gay bars?
(Also, you do realize, right, that most of the gay scene in Boston takes place at venues that don't card at the door?)
She obviously didn't know anything about the specifics of this case but that didn't stop her from diarrhea of the mouth.
Yeah, he WAS well-known in the gay bars ...
Second, do not criticize the Globe for its lead paragraph. I have no doubt that Mr Mark Snyder demanded he be labeled as such. He takes pride in being called a "sissy". In fact, I think he's offended if you don't.
Speaking of sissy...
As usual, John, you don't have the balls to even address me directly on an internet forum. Do you really need to go into a whole different thread and refer to me in third person instead of just replying to me like an adult? Really?
Yes, I did just make a really sexist comment.
I know a lot of people who knew him, and I didn't ever say the claim that he was known in the bar scene was inaccurate. That wasn't my point. I asked where the person got the info, since they were attacking the character of the man without attributing their information at all. There wasn't anything in the initial stories about him being well known in gay bars. Or anything about him being in bars that are 21+ at the door, or him drinking underage. So, I wanted to know where this person got the information, or whether they were just making stupid assumptions. That's all.
Anyway, did you miss the whole gist of the comment I was responding to? Do you really think the poster suggesting that a man deserved to be killed because he was drinking (or entering establishments) underage? No, of course he wasn't; the snide statements about "why your child was well known in gay bars" are nothing more then homophobia, suggesting it's scandalous to hang out in one of our bars (whether drinking or not), when few people would lay blame on the parents of a 20-year-old adult for his having been inside a non-gay bar.
I'm confused
So you were angry because someone said something that you knew was true but you didn't think they had any right to know it was true because they weren't footnoting their sources properly to prove that this thing that you knew was true already was true, and that's just not fair?
Let me go on record as saying that I had no idea the deceased was well known in the gay bars of Boston, because I'm not well known anywhere at all, because I don't get out much, but it's not like I imagine anyone should give a good god damn if he was or wasn't, because is that supposed to be some kind of condemnation of somebody, to be well known in (OMG) gay bars?? Is there some kind of double-secret double-standard here where we're not allowed to talk about whether a (c'mon now) hairdresser was gay or not? Are we supposed to go back to the fifties and all just kind of wink and nod and maybe whisper code phrases to each other?
Jeez, when I hear a young fellow was well known in the gay bars of Boston, I just assume that (1) he's gay (duh!), (2) he likes to go out and has a lot of friends, and (3) he has some fake ID or just gets by with a smile. Am I allowed to think this? I know I'm an outsider and all, and not in on the secret knowledge of who does what, and can't at all footnote this. But I was 20 once, and when I went to bars I usually had a beer, so it seems to me like a perfectly reasonable (and not at all insulting) assumption.
But maybe I should just be pre-emptively accusing someone else here of something. Racism! Homophobia! Ageism! Someone here has got to be guilty of some thought-crime.
Did you read the original
Did you read the original thread? I didn't see "angry" at all, just a question.
I also find the rest of your post confusing; I can't tell who you're criticizing.
If you want to find angry
Go look in the post above for a litany of name-calling and manhood-insulting. That's teh angry. And kinda weird.
Meh, that doesn't strike me
Meh, that doesn't strike me as particuarly angry, either...but then, I do happen to know there's a bit of history between these two.
a bit of history
Might explain what seems like a disproportionate response to the situation.
So should I assume that this is really a personal squabble and wait for an equally derogatory comeback?
The Globe
Good for Mark Snyder that he feels free in Boston to be who he really is, rather than trying to hide himself.
And I think that was what the reporter was trying to show - that in a city where somebody like him feels so safe and secure, all of a sudden, now he has reason not to feel that way.
But I agree with Riggs - I don't think the lead works. Now, I disagree with Riggs on the motivation behind the story. I don't think the reporter was out to bash gays or was being lazy (I'll leave that accusation for the Globe as a whole, which basically was ignoring the story, except for Adrian "I wish to make an obvious point with no evidence to back it up" Walker, who tried tying the murder to that Roslindale limo gang drive-by).
It doesn't work because the "effeminate" stuff is really more this interesting bit of information about Mark Snyder, not something about the gay "community" (is there really a single gay community?) as a whole and by just leaving that information hanging there in the first paragraph, the reporter does sort of reinforce the old gay stereotype, even if unintentionally. You could have removed the stuff about Mark Snyder and it still would have been a decent story (albeit a few days late).
The Real Problem ...
Is that the writer of the Globe article can't seem to see the difference between "sissy identity" and "gay". Either that, or the lede is capitalizing on a highly dear but completely fallacious premise that gender expression and sexual preference are correlated in any truly meaningful way.
Mark may be all the sissy he wants to be, but the writer was wrong to spin that into a lede based on a stereotype that simply isn't true. The most "sissy" guys I've ever known were both straight and married to women. The most macho? Gay gay gay. Time for the Globe to bury that bullcrap before Mr. Focus on the Family destroys another young child with his "burn all his dolls NOW or he'll turn gay!" mentality.
In a world of her own
Ned: Do I hear the sound of butting in - it's got to be little Lisa Simpson ... Springfield's answer to a question no one asked!
Is referring to Mark Snyder
Is referring to Mark Snyder as "her" really necessary?
Mark Snyder might identify
Mark Snyder might identify as "her".
He might, but is it really
He might, but is it really some random realtor's place to determine that?
I could be wrong
I could be wrong, but I think the "her" in the comment "Moo" first reacted to was not a reference to Mr. Snyder. John K, perhaps you can clarify your Simpsons remark for the class?
Lost interest in this, long ago...
... the Lisa Simpson comment was pointed at the previous commenter, not Mr Snyder.
How very mature of you. Are
How very mature of you. Are you too afraid to say her name for some reason?
fatal stabbing shakes a few of city's crankiest gay activists
Am I supposed to be cowering in my basement praying to Judy Garland, because a couple of overcaffeinated queers think the armies of Kris Mineau are stalking Tremont Street for tender young things to do in?
Yakovleff's death is awful, but I don't buy the Glob's tenuous filament of logic here. I highly doubt the guy that stabbed him is part of a vast anti-gay backlash conspiracy looking to repay the SJC by flooding the streets of Boston with the blood of young homos.
As for Mark Snyder, he once called the Dig to complain about our hate speech, because Michael Brodeur (gayest Dig editor ever) called a Cirque du Soleil album "cosmic global faggotry." High-larious.
Well put, Lissa. There's
Well put, Lissa.
There's been some lobbying (by e-mail) to blow this story into a sociological crime trend. That might be putting the cart before the horse.
As the investigation continues, we shall see. But even the Courant -- in Hartford, of all places -- jumped off on this story by suggesting the press and police would somehow suppress the incident (because the victim was gay, I assume ... I still haven't heard a solid justification for this presupposition that the press/police hates or undervalues a gay man or woman's life).
I think the story should be covered like any (and every) homicide in the city of Boston - with facts and details that reporters unearth. Space in print allotted according to weight of detail.
lobbying?
By who? Interesting.
There are surely still plenty of haters in the world, but the squashing-the-story-because-the-victim-is-gay theory didn't really pass my bullshit test, either. I think it's more likely the Globe was a week and a half late with the followup because it was in Dorchester--and since when is murder in Dorchester news?
Actually, nothing in Dorchester is news. I went to a huge community meeting about PCB contamination in the Neponset River three weeks ago, and was flabbergasted to see it reported in the Globe TODAY. That's gotta be some kind of record, even for them.
Globe is in Dorchester, too
Of course, the Globe is also located in Dorchester. A short walk from where this body was found, in fact.
My Interview With The Boston Globe
Hello All.
Since you are having a fun time discussing me and my identity, I thought I would chime in.
First of all, yes I identify as a sissy/effeminate/genderqueer and I was not offended by that portrayal of me in the Globe. I do however think it is dangerous to project my identity and/or feelings onto the entire LGBT community.
I did have some issues with the article that I will describe to you:
I was under the impression the article was going to be about a wide range of issues facing the LGBT community. My interview lasted for over an hour. During the interview I was asked about how I felt about Dan's death but for the majority of the time I discussed LGBTQ history, current LGBT rights, the struggles facing youth, relations between the queer community and police including Stonewall, and my experiences with harassment both growing up and and on the streets of Boston.
I disagree with the Globe author's sentiment that I now feel less safe because of Dan's death. What I actually said to her was that although I feel safer being out and about here in Boston (as opposed to my rural home), I have faced quite a bit of discrimination and harassment on the streets of Boston - and those of us who transgress society's gender norms the most face that the most.
I want to make it clear that I was on Dan's outer circle of friends (he was closer with my roommate, hung out at our house sometimes, we chatted on the street etc.) and I did this interview because I thought it would be informative and helpful for people to understand the queer community more - I did not do the interview to capitalize on Dan's death or his (under reported!) story.
While I am happy more people are learning about and celebrating Dan's life, and more people are being told that they should call the police if they have information - I too share many of the criticisms of the Globe article that the Bay Window's blog and others expressed.
Now, as far as my phone call to the Weekly Digg a while back - that story has been twisted around considerably. I tried to get the author of that cd review to understand that to call something "fagotry" as an insult rather than a compliment was offensive because there is nothing wrong with being a fag. I asked the author why he used fagotry to describe a cd that he was saying was terrible, and he could not answer that question. He just kept saying "but I'm gay mark snyder, I am gay so it can't be homophobic." My point was lost as my words were twisted around and false accusations were made in the days following that brief and silly incident.
If you have any questions I am always happy to discuss: [email protected].
Thanks for stopping in
You rock.
Articulate
And I second the thanks. It's always nice to have better information, and always nice to have someone stop in here who can write coherently.
I can imagine what you describe. Do you think the reporter was playing you out just to get a couple of quotes? The Globe did kind of read like PANIC OF THE QUEERS!!!
Or perhaps the reporter is writing more than one article
and is saving the rest of the interview quotes for the other one?
no idea
I have no idea. I have to say the reporter did seem really nice and supportive/pro-gay. She asked really great questions which isn't really reflected in the article.
I did talk about what seemed to be an uptake in violence lately considering the hate crime in Bedford, the trans girl beaten in Lowell recently, and the experiences of my friends as far as harassment on the street - but to relate that to Daniel's death is a super big weird stretch considering - as I said in the article- we do not know why it happened.
Are you Mark Snyder?
From the content of your comment, I assume you are, but you posted this as "Anonymous".
Same URL as Mr. Snyder
More evidence that it's probably the same guy: Anonymous gave the same URL for his name as Mark Snyder did above.
yes
yes that was me oops