Has there been studies that show as a group, gay men and lesbian women are more affluent than the population as a whole in the Western World?
The few Gays and Lesbians that I know seem to be the kind of people that work very hard and really strive to make something of themselves. They are also portrayed this way in the media. I’m sure that there are plenty of Gays and Lesbians that are not well off financially, but IMHO they would seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Any reputable scientific surveys that dispute this notion?
I don’t know about the whole Western world, but there is research that indicates that gay men and lesbians in the US tend to be less affluent than straight folks.
I suspect things may be even worse than that, as LGBT folks who are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds may be more likely to remain in the closet and thus would not be included in studies on the subject. As the full fact sheet linked above points out, in most of the US it’s still perfectly legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation or for being transgender.
One thing about being gay that probably is an advantage in terms of financial security is the much smaller risk of unplanned pregnancy, although same-sex couples who do want to have children will usually have adoption/artificial insemination/surrogate expenses that most straight couples can avoid.
They do tend to have lower average incomes than their straight counterparts, although I believe that a lot of it is because they are less likely NEED as much money, since most of them don’t have children.
In other words, they can do what they want, instead of what they have to, because their financial needs are not as great.
I know I’ve read that the whole “rich gays” thing was started by The Advocate in the 80s to make the magazine look more attractive to advertisers. The fact is that while many white urban gay men ARE fairly affluent, when you move the focus over to lesbians (of all races and locations) and gay men of color or who live in more rural areas, that “affluent” meme doesn’t hold.
Which would only make sense if straight people with children earned more than straight people without children. But exactly the opposite is true: age adjusted, people with children make significantly less than childless people.
This may be because they would face financial risks if they came out as gay. In most US states it’s legal for employers to fire you just for being gay.
There was a link in the very first reply in this thread.
Another issue mentioned by the APA fact sheet is that a disproportionate number (20-40%) of homeless teenagers are LGBT. About a quarter of LGBT teenagers who come out to their parents report having been thrown out of their homes over this. While it’s possible for a person who’s been homeless to become successful, I would assume that having been homeless – and without even the emotional support of one’s parents – as a teenager really hurts their odds.
The situation is far, far worse for transgender persons than the APA article indicates. I went out to a pub with my friend the molecular biologist who works at 7-11, fired for transitioning on the job. Also at the table was my good friend the national director of marketing for a major Pharma company who was told by CEO “if you come out of the closest as a transsexual, we will fire you.” And just yesterday, the leader of the local trans activism group was trying to find homes to place 3 unrelated transwomen who were recently kicked out of their houses by their parents for being transgender. I can point to another good friend of mine, a lawyer who struggles to pay her rent because despite a stellar career pre-transition, she can’t find clients who want a “tranny” to represent them. Or a collection of 4 transwomen friends - the accountant, the nurse, the former Army Captain, and the chef - who all lost their jobs and now work all together at Bed Bath & Beyond (one of the vanishingly few trans-welcoming employers here) stocking shelves and sweeping floors.
That’s a typical day in transland.
But it could start getting better really quickly, after both the decision in Macy v. Holder and the Obama Administration’s EEOC taking a militant stance towards protecting transgender persons. And there are major exceptions - a large number of Fortune 100 companies now provide full protection for gender identity and expression. It’s getting better, but trans civil rights are about where black civil rights were in 1920.
As a gay man, I have refrained from applying for good jobs in unfriendly geographic locations. I’m underemployed where I am, but there is no discrimination here that I have seen. Whether I was right to refuse to take these risks is a matter for debate, but if other gays are limiting opportunities based on political climate or other perceived risks, that could be a factor.
Everything I hear from inside the LGBTQQIAA community is consistent with the view that gay people are less affluent on average, and that thinking otherwise contributes (intentionally or unknowingly) to a societal system that puts gay people at a disadvantage. And to echo Una Persson, certainly things are generally much worse for transgender people.
This is a shame, but there ARE things we can do to help. Just the other day I signed up for regular donations to a social justice group working to write transgender rights into the law in my state. Good people fighting the good fight are out there, and it’s not hard to help them!
I’m curious as to what geographic locations you consider “unfriendly”. In 2013 are there really major cities in the USA that you would be uncomfortable working in? As a person who is not gay, I’m just asking. My apologies if this may sound like a “dumb” question to you.
If a gay man only looked for employment in say San Francisco, Honolulu, West Hollywood, etc., wouldn’t you consider this to be rather extreme?
Yes, I would. I’m an academic, so a lot of the positions are in smaller college towns in the Midwest and South. I’m not wild about being in a tiny oasis in some of those states. Cities, at least, are large oases, with easy access to other places. Most college communities themselves are very gay-friendly.
Minorities, in general, would be wise to be particular about where they move. Sticking out like a sore thumb all the time, with no one to hang out with, is not fun.
It’s not just about friendliness, but also social access. A gay person who wants to date is going to have a harder time doing so in a small podunk town than in a larger metro area.
I don’t know that I’d consider the response to that a comeuppance, exactly. It’s a very common misconception that there are broader protections for LGBT out there than there actually are. A LOT of people (even ones who should probably know better) think the situation is nowhere near as dire as it actually is.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I find the comments concerting in that it appears we’re now parsing LGBT “affluence”. When did sexual orientation become a “right” to promtion or higher than average wages? The fact that one is gay does not and should not shade their job performance (or lack thereof).
Just more Balkanization of the country.
/ knows a bunch of gay folks, and money isn’t one of their problems.
// worked with a guy who decided to tran… jeezus, what a complete and utter train wreck.
Never, the same time that it became a “right” (not sure why the quotation marks) to demotion or lower than average wages. It should be exactly as irrelevant to one’s job as sex, race, religion, “race” / ethnicity, etc. Have look at this story from today’s L.A. Times, in which as gay teacher is fired for having his wedding photos published in the local newspaper. The idea is to combat that nonsense, not to give gays special privileges.