Stop being so shrill, or I won't support your strgggle!

The BBQ Pit
61

FWIW, I think matt’s post, as usual, hits the nail on the head. Kvetching is all fine and dandy, and is useful as kvetching; when it gets mistaken for activism is when there’s a problem.

I’m hoping the OP isn’t addressed in part at me, because if it is, it’s a gross misunderstanding of what I’m saying. I’m not at all calling for anyone to be polite, to be simpering, to kowtow to bigots.

Instead, I’m saying that you gotta have a plan. When people talk about “taking rights,” they sometimes sound like they think they can storm the Rights warehouse and pick up a couple bales of Rights down there.

That ain’t how it works. Getting equal rights for SSC is fundamentally a legal struggle: there is no way to claim this right like Rosa Parks claimed the right to ride on the bus. The closest an equivalent there would be would be to, on the death of your SSPartner, to behave as though their property belonged to you, inhabiting it and taking forcible possession of it. And that’s not, I think, what people are advocating.

So what are folks advocating? Elections, it seems like. Firing the politicians who vote against absolute equal rights for SSC (and again, though I’d prefer nobody gets government-sponsored marriage, I’d also be thrilled if everyone could get it).

However, the reality right now seems to be that the vast majority of Americans are going to vote to rehire the anti-equality politicians. That’s a horrible situation, but that’s the reality we’re faced with.

So what now?

Posturing about “taking rights” doesn’t get anyone anywhere. Concrete plans get folks somewhere.

What sort of concrete plans are out there to move this country toward absolute equality for SSC?

Daniel

62

Vote against them. Vote against their supporters in office. Lobby against them. Boycott any companies that contributed to them. Contribute to their opponents. File lawsuits against them for harrassment, defamation etc. And, for the politicians and their supporters who have a few “dalliances” of their own, out them, show them up to the public as hypocrites and heap ridicule upon them.

63

I’m happy to do all these things, except for the outing of the hypocrites, which I feel isn’t my place to do.

At the same time, I am convinced that, without a strong public relations campaign, this won’t be enough. The folks who want to keep things unequal have got deep pockets and crackerjack organization. It’s the Christian Coalition folks that are in the enemy camp, and they’re fantastic at manipulating and subverting democracy. They’re going to be in the churches telling folks about the evils of SSC.

And the people they’re talking to are the ones that we have to persuade.

All the steps you mentioned, except for the lawsuits, come down to influencing the electoral process. And ultimately, that means getting the folks who are currently anti-equality to become pro-equality.

Taking this right is going to involve convincing these folks. And my experience with radical politics is that most folks aren’t convinced they’re wrong when you compare them to Hitler, no matter how apt the comparison may be.

If folks are just kvetching, that’s one thing. But be very careful not to mistake kvetching for contributing to the solution.

Daniel

64

I’ll support the struggle whether you are shrill or not. That doesn’t mean being shrill is a good idea. Indeed, I sort of resent it when it fucks up the struggle pointlessly.

65

OK, then, what the hell do you suggest? I’m basically ruthless, so of course I would go for the “ruin the bastards” approach. What sort of public relations do you recommend? Have a national Take a Queer to Lunch day? Offer free floral arrangements and home decorating? Start a barbershop quartet? We already have parades, festivals, sporting events, and plenty of charitable things going on. Hire spin doctors? Pay bribes (oopsie I mean campaign contributions)? Let’s face it. “They” are not going to let us speak in “their” churches. I’m open to any ideas that don’t boil down to suck up and take it, or think happy thoughts. The problem we have is, either “they” despise us, or just don’t care because it doesn’t affect them. Give me something to work with here.

66

…or get rid of the more “embarrassing” queers, a suggestion that has historically come up with depressing frequency.

67

I don’t know how to do that, and even if it was “reasonable”, who gets to decide? The Log Cabin people (and others) tried to project the wholesome whitebread all-Amurrican image, and got no where. Tell you what… we’ll tell the drag queens, dyke bikers, and flamboyant ones to hush up as soon as the other side gets their inbred, redneck, spotlight hunting, trailer park trash, cracker, white sheet wearing, “embarrasing ones” under control. It sounds too much like a “get rid of the uppity niggers and things will be alright” mentality. And it isn’t going to happen. You see, it is the “embarrassing ones” who have the guts to raise a stink. Think back to Stonewall. It was the “embarrassing ones” who decided they were not going to take any more police harrasment and abuse.

68

By the way Matt, I know you are on my side in this, and that was really just rhetoric to stir up the opposition, who still has not shown me any of the facts they keep touting.

69

Suggestion: do the hard work of campaigning. Fight to elect politicians that support gay rights. Stop splitting up into a million godamn constituency special interest groups and just fight to get the right politicians elected and powerful. Don’t backbite the ones that aren’t sufficiently pure enough. There is shrill when its needed as an alarm. But then there is utterlly, pointlessly shrill. People seem to be defending the idea that they can scream at the top of their lungs, call everyone and their mother a bigot indescriminately, and this is somehow a) fair because of oppression and b) productive. It’s not. It’s fucking worse than useless. We need people willing to WORK, to go out and sell the idea to middle america. To orchestrate and fundraise and support legal efforts and so on.

70

Exactly. My comment was another clause of your request for suggestions that don’t do such-and-such.

71

(That was a response to SteveG1.)

72

LHD: All the steps you mentioned, except for the lawsuits, come down to influencing the electoral process. And ultimately, that means getting the folks who are currently anti-equality to become pro-equality.

SG: OK, then, what the hell do you suggest? […] What sort of public relations do you recommend? Have a national Take a Queer to Lunch day? […] I’m open to any ideas that don’t boil down to suck up and take it, or think happy thoughts.

matt: …or get rid of the more “embarrassing” queers

Eh, I guess the only thing that will really work in the long run is to infiltrate. Keep on being out and being part of the larger community. The only thing that will really change most people’s minds is the personal realization that homosexuals are people just like them in the essentials of humanity, even if they’re somewhat unexpected in superficial ways.

And yes, that goes for the drag queens and biker dykes too. I’m not suggesting that anybody should have to project a crew-cut, buttoned-down, apple-pie image in the hopes of looking “normal” enough to be accepted. But whatever your persona, you need to take it into segments of the society that aren’t other gays or reliably gay-friendly straights, and let people see that you’re human beings, high heels, leather collars, and all.

And yes, I know that one reason that that isn’t easy to do is because some vicious moron might kill you or fire you or run you out of town. I’m not making light of the dangers and difficulties. I’m just saying that in cold reality, I think that’s the only type of action that ever really changes people’s minds.

73

I thought what I suggested was pretty clear, and no, it wasn’t some “shut up the freaky queers” bullshit. What I suggested was that you work to change the minds of the anti-equality folks.

Way I see it, there are three possibilities:

  1. Work through the electoral process, which means changing the minds of the anti-equality folks who are currently voting against equality.
  2. Start a revolution, which means hoping you’re better at the whole killin’ thing than the homophobes are.
  3. Suck it up and take it.

I’m just sayin’ that the first possibility is the best one. That, again, doesn’t mean telling the leatherdykes or the radical faeries or whoever to shut up; quite the reverse. It means doing whatever it takes to change minds. And in my experience in radical politics, insulting folks is bloody useless when it comes to changing minds. And in my experience in radical politics, far too many activists are more interested in being right than in achieving the goal.

Thus my comment about learning to play chess.

Daniel

74

Gah. I was saying that’s what the plan SHOULDN’T include.

75

Hm. We seem to be having pretty good luck with the “ask the courts to interpret the Charter correctly” thing, but I confess I don’t know how well that would do in the States.

76

You Canadians are always bragging, aren’t you?

If I’m wrong–if we’re able to achieve SSM down here via court action–believe me, I’ll be dancing a happy dance. Whether or not it’s an unlawful intrusion of the courts into matters properly handled by the legislature, blah blah blah, is vastly overshadowed by the improvement in justice and fairness that would result.

But I don’t see it happening. Definitely the fight in the courts should continue, but I’m not expecting it to succeed.

The fight has got to happen in public opinion. That may be civil disobedience: SSC filing taxes as married couples and publicizing the fact that they’re doing so, and getting into a high-visibility fight with the IRS over it. That may involve oratory: someone with a great gift of speech and a big podium making gay marriage a major issue. That may involve a takeover of the Episcopalian church by pro-equality forces.

I dunno. I do know that it won’t involve alienating the people whose votes, eventually, we’re gonna need.

Daniel

77

As opposed to the courts (nine different ones) lawfully performing their constitutional function by interpreting the Charter passed by Parliament in 1982 and signed into the Constitution according to the prescribed formula for amending the same… but leave that be.

78

I think this is the whole issue: Do you really think we behave in real life the same way some of us do when we are venting in the BBQ Pit?

79

Please remember that I will be doing a happy dance if the courts rule that states are required to issue SSM licenses. My belief about what they will do reflects my inherent pessimism about government.

As for the point that folks behave differently here than in real life, I think I’ve recognized that point several times. Do you also agree that some activists in real life behave like this, and that it’s not generally very effective?

Daniel

80

About marriage? I don’t recall having seen it recently.