Have LGBT Counterattacks Gone Too Far?

[Elani Temperance]

The bottom line is, the lesbian and gay community now seems to be winning the war for marriage equality. Should we tone down the rhetoric to reflect that? Yes, we queer folks have been powerless underdogs for our entire political history--a condition that leads to creative and, shall we say, colorful means to get one's point across--but as we transition into a place of political success and power, should our means of communication transition too?

Here in the Netherlands, we are about as close to equality as I think is possible. We are able to marry, adopt kids, get sperm donors relatively easily, etc. In the eyes of the law, my (future) marriage to my girlfriend of seven years is just as valid as that of any heterosexual couple. It's a good thing, a great thing even, but it has done very little to stop the discrimination that still lingers in society. That piece of paper gave us more rights but it never made us equal. Unfortunately, the fight for equality is far from over.

[Jabberwocky]

This, of course, is in reference to the successful attempt by gay activist Dan Savage to redefine the last name of politician Rick Santorum in retaliation for his rabidly anti-gay efforts. (Google it if you don't know what I mean.)

I really don't have a problem with the Santorum thing at all. I'd accept it's quite immature, but I find it funny. Which is what I suspect this particular one boils down to- it's to do with people's senses of humour mostly.

Now comes the following blog, going after anti-gay National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher:

Where's Raman?
The Hunt for the World's Most Private Husband

http://wheresraman.blogspot.com/2012....html?spref=tw

For me, it's not so much the attempt to spotlight her marriage that's potentially troublesome; if you're going to found an organization that promotes marriage as only between one man and one woman, you'd better be prepared for that kind of scrutiny. It's some of the comments on the blog that might give pause.

The blog, I do have more of an issue with, but it's nothing to do with people being aggressive or Maggie Gallagher getting her feelings hurt. The specific problems I have are with her being attacked for previously being an "unwed mother" and the comments about her weight. Because those kind of comments don't exist in isolation- they're part of a wider societal pattern of attitudes towards unwed mothers and overweight people. And by utilising that, people are reinforcing those attitudes. I don't think that's on. Any more than I'd think it was acceptable to deal with a racist gay person through recourse to homophobic insults.

I'm all in favour of fighting fire with fire. But that's not the same thing as adopting the enemy's worldview.

[Jabberwocky]

While I can understand your position, unfortunately people who don't want you to exist are always going to be around. All-out counterattacks on "them" are going to make you look bad to those outside "them".

I can't see it making a difference either way. People might not support specific individuals or groups because they see them as too confrontational. But nobody is suddenly going to become homophobic because they read someone being nasty about homophobes on the Internet.

At some point such counterattacks will do more harm than good in the wider community (and will never change a single "them" mind).

I see no evidence that civility will change any "them" minds either. So it's not about that for me. It's that I think it's a good thing for bigots to feel under attack. The other side has been throwing the vast bulk of the punches in the "culture wars" over the years. As far as I'm concerned, it's about time people started hitting back.

[Altair]

I don't think we're "winning" just yet, just because we're getting closer to marriage equality. Well-to-do, white, cis gay men and lesbians are, to some degree, "winning," but the rest of us are dying out here. Marriage equality doesn't stack up against what my end of the community faces--1 in 5 homeless, 1 in 5 HIV-positive, 1 in 12 murder rate, an absurdly high level of job and housing discrimination, something like an 80% domestic violence rate, a 1 in 2 rate of sexual assault, and more than 40% of the living reporting having attempted suicide--it just doesn't. We're still killed for sport on the streets with almost no consequences. Our elders are still dying alone and closeted in nursing homes if they live to old age, and our youngest are still coming apart for lack of intergenerational community.
I mean, marriage equality is a win. I am an old-fashioned, marrying kind of girl, you know? But we're not well-represented politically, and other than a thin slice of upper-class white people--who were already born into a certain amount of power, lost some upon coming out, and are now getting it back--we're not doing well economically, either. Culture's getting kinder, step by step, but there's miles to go.

First, while I agree with you on how much still remains to be done, marriage equality is more than a win; it's a win that goes a long way towards addressing many of the other problems you mention. Full equality before the law--and marriage is perhaps the biggest hurdle to this--will help our young people with their self-esteem, which will reduce substance abuse and suicide; reduce ostracism, which will help with suicide and murder; etc.

I'm not saying marriage is a panacea. But it's more than an isolated win. It's a win with a lot of ramifications.

But that's not the issue I'm raising with my question. I'm wondering if, in the marketplace of ideas, we're slowing our future success with rhetoric that served us well when we were on the bottom of the societal heap, but maybe doesn't work as well now that we're doing better.

(And yes, despite all the work left to be done, there's no denying we're doing better. I lived a closeted life all through grade school and high school through the '70s, and an openly gay life beginning in college in the early '80s, and the difference between then and now is light-years.)

[Etheric1]

I see no evidence that civility will change any "them" minds either. So it's not about that for me. It's that I think it's a good thing for bigots to feel under attack. The other side has been throwing the vast bulk of the punches in the "culture wars" over the years. As far as I'm concerned, it's about time people started hitting back.

This. It may look ugly, but when it comes to bullying, which is basically what this is in many cases, hitting back can be necessary. I do not accept the argument that it's lowering one's self to "their level." Sometimes their level is the only thing they can understand. The civility thing is great and all, but when it doesn't work, I'm not against turning things up a notch.

[Altair]

People with such fragile ethics are not much concern to me.

Bear in that I have already made it clear that I do not think my attitude is the right and only one.

But neither can it be suppressed.

See, that's my problem. I'm 50% firebrand, 50% peacemaker. I'm not sure which side of the rhetorical spectrum I'm leaning towards these days (obviously, or I wouldn't have posted the question in the first place).

But I think Randall has the right idea. What are we trying to achieve? And at this stage of our movement's development, what kind of rhetoric is going to maximize our success in achieving it?

And the undecided middle should *absolutely* be of concern to us, if we want to solve the problems Valentine mentions. We're a small minority of the population; we need allies and have to sway public opinion, in order to make political progress in this democracy.

[cigfran]

What are we trying to achieve?

There is no one thing. An end to lies and murder would be good, though.

...what kind of rhetoric is going to maximize our success in achieving it?

I'll say this again: all kinds. The idea that we need to exercise control over some of our own so that we don't freak out the delicate sensibilities of the weak-minded is just internalized oppression and fear.

And the undecided middle should *absolutely* be of concern to us...

Oh, they are. And most of the LGBt rights establishment is focused on little else.

[Altair]

I'll say this again: all kinds. The idea that we need to exercise control over some of our own so that we don't freak out the delicate sensibilities of the weak-minded is just internalized oppression and fear.

I don't even know how such "control" would be exercised. I don't know anybody who's talking about it, in the community or in this thread, except that you've brought it up.

Maybe I'm not getting what you mean. What kind of control within the community do you fear?

[cigfran]

I don't even know how such "control" would be exercised. I don't know anybody who's talking about it, in the community or in this thread, except that you've brought it up.

Maybe I'm not getting what you mean. What kind of control within the community do you fear?

Well, when you ask "Should we tone down the rhetoric" what "we" are you referring to? If you are not the one deploying the rhetoric, then you are suggesting that someone else should.

And I am disagreeing. The rhetoric should not be toned down, nor should any effort be made to get those who employ such rhetoric to tone it down.

Control of this kind takes many forms, from "do it for the good of the team" persuasion to "you're making us look bad" marginalization to "you're not really us" shunning. Control can be anything from "could you please keep it down" to "shut the f**k up and go away," depending on how contrary and damaging the mainstreaming group finds its outliers.

[MadZealot]

And I am disagreeing. The rhetoric should not be toned down, nor should any effort be made to get those who employ such rhetoric to tone it down.

Speak the truth in all things. Sometimes, truth is a blunt stick.
I can agree with this.

Control of this kind takes many forms, from "do it for the good of the team" persuasion to "you're making us look bad" marginalization to "you're not really us" shunning. Control can be anything from "could you please keep it down" to "shut the f**k up and go away," depending on how contrary and damaging the mainstreaming group finds its outliers.

The risk you run is that the outspoken outliers of the given group become the face of it; in the eyes of the weak minded, the outliers are the group. Maybe you don't care about the delicate sensibilities and the fragile ethics of the broader world, but is it acceptable for you and/or your group to be defined by a vocal few? In a way, that is the group being marginalized by itself.