1. While everyone agrees that the set up of such a project was a great idea, the processing of it was not fully analyzed before implementation. The former E.D. should take huge credit for the funding supplied etc but she did not come up with the idea on her own. I don't see it highlighted in many quarters that the last GLABCOM Steering Committee also pushed for such an idea. In fact, not many people know that initially a spot in the rural area was being targeted for the programme and so when the grounds of the office ended up facilitating the programme, it caught a lot of people off-guard...including the neighbours who the E.D. did not--nor the co-ordinators of the programme--even do the curtesy of alerting them to such.
2. Initially, the programme worked until the first set of inhabitants felt that the entire grounds was open to them to flaunt certain risky behaviour, with no regard for the two neighbours who--and I must stress--are NOT affiliated with JASL in any way and have persons who frequent them who were/are not gay or necessarily gay-friendly et al. Many of the guys started in a manner of caution until they became 'relaxed' and that is when their behaviour became more and more 'erratric'. For example, some would wear women's high heels in broad daylight on the compound, sashay the hips in a very obvious effeminate manner or hurl expletives at each other loudly so that no matter what, others must hear them (i.e, 'you girl, come suck out mi pussy, ect).
3. As this behaviour unfurled, the former E.D. was clearly encouraging of this behaviour and that is the main source of her popularity with them. I have spent a lot of time with her so I know that she champions the rights of gays being freely who they are but I questioned her on this point many times after the programme started. This is a tricky topic to get into but the fact is that the organization does not cater to homosexual needs only and as gay-friendly as it is, the specific clientele in the programme were not stressed on that enough and she openly encouraged it. This was a huge vexing point and may very well have been the initial step in what eventually 'forced' her to leave the organization.
4. The micro-management of the programme eroded quickly because of a few points. The most obvious was the number of boys (12) that were cramped in the unfurnished (initially), three bedroom house. Now, anyone reading this section will find that hard to believe but its true. With such a high number, the inner-fighting was bound to happen swiftly and while the handlers of the programme tried their best to calm them (morning prayers, strict counselling, meetings, ect) the boys needed more than that. Now, what more they needed is a question I'm sure everyone tried to answer but no clear disciplinary action worked, not even being banished from the house as they would resurface any way. In many ways, the organization must shoulder blame for this because if the foundation of a programme is optimistic at best and shaky at worst, then it is bound to fail. Alas, the programme had run its course long before the official end came.
5. Which leads to another point: the purpose of the programme. At times, the former E.D. herself seemed at a loss to explain what was actually being done. The boys in the programme, lured by her easy charm, eventually decided that they would 'run' it themselves. So, the organization could barely get them to volunteer. They ran up the light bill, have visitors way into the night, parade themselves loudly and disturbed the neighbours...all of this while staff members looked the other way. What the former E.D. did not see coming was the growing opposition to the running of the programme, spearheaded by the neighbours who, while friendly, were not willing to put their own safety in jeopardy just so that the boys could sleep at night. The E.D. began to get bogged down by concerns she apparently hadn't thought of earlier: security issues/ conflict resolution/ methods of selection, ect. By the end of December, I'm sure it became apparent to her that the end was near. The boys did not help matters by openly soliciting heterosexuals that visited the compound among other things. I want to stress here that while there were a few well-behaved guys in the programme, there were quite a few who exuded self-destructive behaviour that would make any liberal blush. The former E.D. took too long to weed them out and that was a critical factor to her demise.
6. With her gone, the programme sputtered until it ended. It was at that point that a lot of the guys realised the value of the programme and I'm sure if they could do it over again they would behave better. The organization has failed them in this regard and so has all the hangers-on who came around as their friends...where are they now in a time of need? Who will take in these boys in need? Of course, they continue to hang around ---a situation the organization needs to monitor but that is the least they can do. With the demise of GLABCOM and the lack of programmes and office personnel being dedicated to tasks, it is left to see how the boys will be assisted in the future. As for the organization itself, it is still trying to regroup but that process remains in tatters. It's at a critical juncture and the next few months will be critical.
click the "Homeless MSM: tab immediately below for previous exclusive entries on homelessness
.mkv_000108708.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000109059.jpg){kind=spacer}
.mkv_000113988.jpg){kind=spacer}
+(Light).jpg)
1 comments:
Gay youths do need a place to go where they can relax, and feel at home and be themselves.
It sounds like it would have made a great television documentary.
I hope some solution can be found. Sad business.
Post a Comment