Annie leibovitz gay

Sure, I knew who she was before reading about her in the Encyclopedia, though I did learn a few new tidbits, like that her real name is Anna-Lou which sounds cool to me but probably is less cool if it's actually your nameand that she was hired by Rolling Stone in in part based on photographs she'd taken while living at Kibbutz Amir in Israel.

What struck me particularly in reading her entry is the absence of any mention of her long relationship with Susan Sontagexcept as collaborators on the book Women. A quick check reveals that Sontag's entry, too, omits any mention of Leibovitz. I know Leibovitz and Sontag were very private and eschewed labels like lesbian to describe their relationship and themselves personally.

And of course historians shouldn't go around outing people or slapping on labels that their subjects they wouldn't use themselves. And, truthfully, we know nothing about their sexual lives, only about their companionship. But neither should historians collude with their subjects in censoring their lives.

Encyclopedias are not meant to be authorized biographies though I can see that in the situation in which a subject is still living, it may be hard to print something they would not want known without running into some trouble. Ultimately, it seems to me, the responsibility of historians is not to protect the people we write about but to help us all learn from their lives.

Here's an example of what knowing about Leibovitz and Sontag's relationship can illuminate. The article, which focused on the increasing trend in this financial downturn of artists and art owners to pawn artwork, mentioned only that Leibovitz needed the money to "pay off mortgages and deal with other financial stresses.

There are other components of "gay taxes" toorelating to the federal government's non-recognition of gay marriage. Obviously, issues of discrimination against gay families such as the "gay tax" aren't new, nor are they, in most places, news. But perhaps a high profile case like Leibovitz's will garner some attention and push the issue forward.

This is where going public about something private can make a difference. Hasn't women's history taught us, after all, that the personal is political? Great piece, Judith. Such a strange line between not outing or defining people on the one hand, and feeling frustrated when folks choose not to use the power they have and which is only granted by the public -- another wrinkle in this in the interest of education and progress.

Great post. I wonder how much of the silencing comes from the family and how much from the writers of the articles. If it's the writers, then what would be wrong with just stating that Leibovitz had an inheritance from Sontag and, not being her spouse, has to pay taxes on it?

Annie leibovitz gay the same as a bequest from a friend. It just makes it all the more salacious, in a way, because they know that the informed reader is reading the silence as well. If it's the family themselves who are initiating the erasure of Sontag and Leibovitz from each other's public biographies I respect their choice of non labels.

But I do annie leibovitz gay fault when a close relationship is not just private, but so unmentionable that they seem ashamed of it. I don't ask Leibovitz to lead the pride parade, but I do think that as a feminist, she should not publicly erase another woman who was important to her.

Word of the Week: Yenta Re-release. Rosenbaum, Judith.

My time with Susan

Jewish Women's Archive. Your name. Email The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.