Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?
- Thread starter whitecoast
- Start date
kalibex
Dagobah Resident
Another example of the difference between the two types of pride:
From:http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2017/01/deadly-sin/
That said, I can imagine that someone from the LGTBQ community might well feel honest pride for the effort need to survive a sometimes extremely hostile cultural milieu, perhaps for having worked politically (possibly at great personal risk) for the right to simply exist, without having to completely hide their identity. Whatever the actual percentage, or even the cause, there'll always be that minority. An example would be, being able to reveal information in their average casual conversation that reveals their minority status (such as the fact that they have a same-sex partner or spouse) without it endangering them or even being that big of a deal. Such information could even at times be part of the practice of external consideration ('Don't bother trying to set me up with that nice single lady from church; already taken!'). And so on.
Obviously any minority identity - (such as active pedophiles - i.e., those predatorily consuming pornography and children) which by its very essence involves selfishly hurting vulnerable members of the community - is a completely different matter. And if our population's been or becomes so Dumbed down that they can no longer see that line in the sand and choose to hand-wave it away...then we do deserve whatever natural consequences might occur after that.
From:http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2017/01/deadly-sin/
That said, I can imagine that someone from the LGTBQ community might well feel honest pride for the effort need to survive a sometimes extremely hostile cultural milieu, perhaps for having worked politically (possibly at great personal risk) for the right to simply exist, without having to completely hide their identity. Whatever the actual percentage, or even the cause, there'll always be that minority. An example would be, being able to reveal information in their average casual conversation that reveals their minority status (such as the fact that they have a same-sex partner or spouse) without it endangering them or even being that big of a deal. Such information could even at times be part of the practice of external consideration ('Don't bother trying to set me up with that nice single lady from church; already taken!'). And so on.
Obviously any minority identity - (such as active pedophiles - i.e., those predatorily consuming pornography and children) which by its very essence involves selfishly hurting vulnerable members of the community - is a completely different matter. And if our population's been or becomes so Dumbed down that they can no longer see that line in the sand and choose to hand-wave it away...then we do deserve whatever natural consequences might occur after that.
Maybe more external consideration would be to add something to the beginning to prime gay readers not to read it as an attack on gays? IE "read carefully and you will see that I do not equate homosexuality with pedophilia or see homosexuality as an abomination in itself. What I describe is the covert manipulation of the non-hetero community for purposes which have nothing at all to do with healthy sexuality."
[quote author=Pierre]By invoking the past oppression they were subjected to, the gay rights movement justifies the oppression it attempts to exert. It's even more ironic when one sees that those oppressive behaviours exhibited by organized minorities trigger, sooner or later, the reaction from the majority that will end up 'oppressing' the disturbing minority again. [/quote]
How specifically are gays oppressing straight people? By their speech? What is advocated (or “proselytized”) is inclusion of gays, not the exclusion of straights.
You’ll notice that many, many drinks served in the west have a small U symbol on them meaning “kosher”. Odds are non-kosher people don’t care about this, but obviously it is important to Jews. So the propensity for the drink marketplace is to become more inclusive and kosher friendly. At what expense to the non-kosher? Gay rights aren’t a zero-sum game.
You may find this article interesting. It’s about allergies and food proscriptions, but I think parts of it apply to gay rights as well. _https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.h9ma9thbe
[quote author=Scottie]Granted, our cases don't have much to do with sexuality, which can be extra-hard on a person... But I guess my point is that some of us probably have a far better clue what it feels like to be a "minority" than some might assume.
{snip}
In my own case, I didn't need to develop pride in myself, or what I suffered; I needed to develop self-respect and a deep understanding that my life was absolutely perfect to prepare me for who/what I am today. No "movement" could have given that to me. It was something that I needed to find for myself. [/quote]
I think those are good points. The commonalities between types of stresses we face provides a good basis for developing empathy and seeing the plights of others. It doesn’t mean our understanding is always perfect though, which is why listening is such a good skill to have. But that, of course, doesn’t mean what someone says is always correct just because of their minority status. ;)
[quote author=Timotheos]My post seems to have struck a nerve with you Whitecoast, and I apologize for any offence that was taken, because none was intended.[/quote]
No problem. If it does turn out my experiences are colouring perception of reality in non-objective ways, then I apologize too for offense.
I understand why many people think this, but sexual orientation is not really a private affair. It is public information, with most people assuming you’re straight until proven otherwise. When you’re out shopping with your wife, or talking about your children, people are well aware you’re straight. Being gay myself, it is quite obvious to me when people assume I’m straight. Something tells me that this assumption goes quite unnoticed for straight people (like a fish asking, what is water?)
Maybe it’s worth making another distinction. Usually when I hear people complaining about gays “shoving their sexuality” in their faces, it’s a complaint about a lack of discretion in telegraphing the gayness, or being too sexualized (depending on context), or both.
I understand and appreciate the objections to the sexualization - I’m sure we agree is a problem for western culture in general. But things like dress and self-presentation that telegraph gay sexuality, even if it’s something as innocuous as a rainbow keychain, should be acceptable. In an ideal world, gays should be able to telegraph their sexuality as unselfconsciously as straights do. Think about it – why on earth would a straight person ever want to be confused for gay? The reverse is also true, except in cases where prejudice is an issue and stealth is beneficial.
Staying in the closet isn’t how you have your human rights respected. (And the lying isn’t good for your brain either). It saves you, and you only. Coming out is a risk, but it helps give others the courage to do the same as well, and eventually helps make the world a safer place for gays in general. People deserve to not to worry about their personal safety just because of their sexuality. The strategy of coming out has been a very successful strategy in this regard. As long as gays are people nobody know, and don’t care to know from the stereotypes in film and religion, nobody cares what happens to them. When people started coming out to friends, family, coworkers, it put a human face on us, and the struggles gays face become all the more personal and real to them. It’s about learning to appeal to people’s sense of empathy, to get allies to help gays fight for the same respect and the same rights that straights naturally have.
This is a response to a bad typo of mine – sorry! My point was that during oppressive times, certain bars, clubs and ghettos typically became safe spaces for gays. Meaning places where gays could simply be themselves, speak without self-censorship, and just socialize with people they’re attracted to without worrying the other person is straight and may hurt them for affronting their masculinity. These types of things are the sort of things straight people take for granted they can do almost anywhere. That’s all.
I mean “respect” in a general sense. “Gay,” “fag,” “sissy” are all slang terms for bad, especially when applied to men. Plus, people do deserve a certain measure of respect when you first meet them, which is then modified based on their actions and character. But some people have been trained to be intolerant and so respect people less simply because of their orientation. Maybe they even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding even though they offer perfectly good money. Obviously bigots can’t be forced to respect gays, but they can be called out for being bigots.
Thank you for your efforts in sensitivity :D I usually say “uncommon.”
[quote author=Joe]
I think the word "pride" in "gay pride" comes mainly from the idea that homosexuality was shameful for a long time, and as a rebellion against that social edict, homosexuals have tried to counter it by proposing the opposite "pride" i.e. that homosexuals should be proud, not ashamed, of their sexuality.[/quote]
The goal of “pride” is to turn unwarranted shame into natural self-esteem. If it goes too far it can turn into unwarranted pride. Historically gays have had a lot of unwarranted shame, so the focus on pride has been meant to raise it to at least be the same natural self-esteem that straights have. Obviously having unwarranted pride (a “superiority complex” as bjorn said) is a problem as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How specifically are gays oppressing straight people? By their speech? What is advocated (or “proselytized”) is inclusion of gays, not the exclusion of straights.
You’ll notice that many, many drinks served in the west have a small U symbol on them meaning “kosher”. Odds are non-kosher people don’t care about this, but obviously it is important to Jews. So the propensity for the drink marketplace is to become more inclusive and kosher friendly. At what expense to the non-kosher? Gay rights aren’t a zero-sum game.
You may find this article interesting. It’s about allergies and food proscriptions, but I think parts of it apply to gay rights as well. _https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.h9ma9thbe
[quote author=Scottie]Granted, our cases don't have much to do with sexuality, which can be extra-hard on a person... But I guess my point is that some of us probably have a far better clue what it feels like to be a "minority" than some might assume.
{snip}
In my own case, I didn't need to develop pride in myself, or what I suffered; I needed to develop self-respect and a deep understanding that my life was absolutely perfect to prepare me for who/what I am today. No "movement" could have given that to me. It was something that I needed to find for myself. [/quote]
I think those are good points. The commonalities between types of stresses we face provides a good basis for developing empathy and seeing the plights of others. It doesn’t mean our understanding is always perfect though, which is why listening is such a good skill to have. But that, of course, doesn’t mean what someone says is always correct just because of their minority status. ;)
[quote author=Timotheos]My post seems to have struck a nerve with you Whitecoast, and I apologize for any offence that was taken, because none was intended.[/quote]
No problem. If it does turn out my experiences are colouring perception of reality in non-objective ways, then I apologize too for offense.
I understand why many people think this, but sexual orientation is not really a private affair. It is public information, with most people assuming you’re straight until proven otherwise. When you’re out shopping with your wife, or talking about your children, people are well aware you’re straight. Being gay myself, it is quite obvious to me when people assume I’m straight. Something tells me that this assumption goes quite unnoticed for straight people (like a fish asking, what is water?)
Maybe it’s worth making another distinction. Usually when I hear people complaining about gays “shoving their sexuality” in their faces, it’s a complaint about a lack of discretion in telegraphing the gayness, or being too sexualized (depending on context), or both.
I understand and appreciate the objections to the sexualization - I’m sure we agree is a problem for western culture in general. But things like dress and self-presentation that telegraph gay sexuality, even if it’s something as innocuous as a rainbow keychain, should be acceptable. In an ideal world, gays should be able to telegraph their sexuality as unselfconsciously as straights do. Think about it – why on earth would a straight person ever want to be confused for gay? The reverse is also true, except in cases where prejudice is an issue and stealth is beneficial.
Staying in the closet isn’t how you have your human rights respected. (And the lying isn’t good for your brain either). It saves you, and you only. Coming out is a risk, but it helps give others the courage to do the same as well, and eventually helps make the world a safer place for gays in general. People deserve to not to worry about their personal safety just because of their sexuality. The strategy of coming out has been a very successful strategy in this regard. As long as gays are people nobody know, and don’t care to know from the stereotypes in film and religion, nobody cares what happens to them. When people started coming out to friends, family, coworkers, it put a human face on us, and the struggles gays face become all the more personal and real to them. It’s about learning to appeal to people’s sense of empathy, to get allies to help gays fight for the same respect and the same rights that straights naturally have.
This is a response to a bad typo of mine – sorry! My point was that during oppressive times, certain bars, clubs and ghettos typically became safe spaces for gays. Meaning places where gays could simply be themselves, speak without self-censorship, and just socialize with people they’re attracted to without worrying the other person is straight and may hurt them for affronting their masculinity. These types of things are the sort of things straight people take for granted they can do almost anywhere. That’s all.
I mean “respect” in a general sense. “Gay,” “fag,” “sissy” are all slang terms for bad, especially when applied to men. Plus, people do deserve a certain measure of respect when you first meet them, which is then modified based on their actions and character. But some people have been trained to be intolerant and so respect people less simply because of their orientation. Maybe they even refuse to bake a cake for their wedding even though they offer perfectly good money. Obviously bigots can’t be forced to respect gays, but they can be called out for being bigots.
Thank you for your efforts in sensitivity :D I usually say “uncommon.”
[quote author=Joe]
I think the word "pride" in "gay pride" comes mainly from the idea that homosexuality was shameful for a long time, and as a rebellion against that social edict, homosexuals have tried to counter it by proposing the opposite "pride" i.e. that homosexuals should be proud, not ashamed, of their sexuality.[/quote]
The goal of “pride” is to turn unwarranted shame into natural self-esteem. If it goes too far it can turn into unwarranted pride. Historically gays have had a lot of unwarranted shame, so the focus on pride has been meant to raise it to at least be the same natural self-esteem that straights have. Obviously having unwarranted pride (a “superiority complex” as bjorn said) is a problem as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
whitecoast said:
I'd like to address just this one point you brought up. I think it's totally normal and logical to assume that other people are straight. Why? Because that's statistically most probable. If 98% of people belong to group A and only 2% to group B, which aren't distinguishable by external features, doesn't it only make sense that people assume first everyone they meet belong to group A? You shouldn't take that personally when you belong to so small minority.
Seppo Ilmarinen said:
Yeah it is a safe assumption that they're straight, but that's not the point. The point is, accepting this idea of "orientation being a private matter" is jut a covert way of saying straights should be able to present publicly whereas gays should not. Perhaps people who say this don't overtly think this, but that's how it comes across when they say gays should be closeted because "orientation is a private matter". Sorry if this wasn't clear.
whitecoast said:
It's not that gays should be closeted, it's that one's sexual preference shouldn't be a point of emphasis either way. No one is saying heterosexuals can present their orientation while homosexuals cannot. I don't see that message being "covertly" sent by anyone, at least no one here. It's that sexual preference is a private matter and really has no bearing on the individual's qualities, or lack thereof. So why should it be out in the open then? And what does the above have to do with people assuming you're straight? I'm a little confused how the two relate.
PhoenixToEmber
Jedi Council Member
whitecoast said:
I understand what you're saying here. I've engaged in a similar argument on a private thread and interpreted the statement about sexuality being "a private matter" in a similar way. From what I understand now, they're not saying we should stay in the closet, just that we shouldn't feel compelled to flaunt our sexuality everywhere we go simply because we feel everyone else is doing so. What we do sexually is between us and that person, unless we seek some form of guidance or advice over an issue we wish to discuss about sex, which should also be done in private. Although "coming out" is part of what has brought equal rights into our society, this is not quite the same as "pride" - if anything, the hyper-sexual and bombastic display of pride events doesn't help us win people over, it further isolates them from accepting us, because in a sense the LGBT community has done more to separate themselves from the rest of society in a sort of rebellious "I'll do whatever I want" way through such events, which makes it seem like we don't want equal rights so much as to have free reign to be as ridiculous as possible and to ignore how other people feel. This isn't a mature attitude no matter what sexuality you are. The point being made about "pride" is that we shouldn't have pride for something biological, just as having pride over where we were born leads to nationalism, which leads to conflict rather than union and understanding between different cultures. Pride should be reserved for our great accomplishments, something great we have personally achieved, and even then it should be kept to a minimum or it will go to our heads and inflate our ego, preparing us for a hard fall.
This may not apply to most gay people, who obviously will keep doing what they're doing because everything is simply "happening" for them and they don't see their mechanicalness and feel they are actually "doing" right by identifying and defining themselves based on their sexuality. But as people who are trying to do the Work we are held to different standards and we are trying to understand and practice external consideration. We need to accept that many people are still uncomfortable with homosexuality, and although their views may be bigoted, we can still respect their beliefs by not throwing our sexuality in their face every chance we get, even if we disagree with those beliefs. We are not entitled to anything, and although we deserve to not be discriminated against, there's definitely a mature way to go about achieving that.
That doesn't mean we can't "come out" to our friends and family, though. And even to our coworkers that we are friends with, as long as we know there is no risk to our jobs. Another aspect is strategic enclosure - if we know that an absolutely open disclosure of our sexuality could potentially bring us harm, it may be better to not scream it from the mountaintops. I know this may seem unfair, because the majority of people are heterosexual and they don't have to exactly "hide" their sexuality in any way because it's more normal and it's automatically assumed, but similar standards of respect should be practiced by everyone regardless of sexuality (meaning not dancing half-naked in the street, not making out in public, not having open displays of sexual intercourse like you see at LGBT "pride" events such as the Black Party - being modest out of respect for others and ourselves) - yet we also should not hold our breaths and expect it from most people because we're all machines until we Work, and most people aren't cognizant of this fact and see no reason to become something beyond what they are. As people who at least understand our mechanicalness and the pathological elements of society, we can Work to become living examples of the higher standards we set for ourselves.
Been meaning to chime in on this thread - wanted to catch up on it first and process my thoughts. Answering you seemed like a good place to step in. When I first read Pierre's article I also reacted to it emotionally until I finished reading it and was able to process the main message, which seems to be that any movement, no matter if the intentions are good at the start, can be ponerized, infiltrated, and utilized for a nefarious purpose much different than the original purpose - that such pathological people can and will latch onto a movement and insert their own agenda into it without the majority of us realizing. This seems to be the case with the widening spectrum of what should be accepted in society that has been developing in the LGBT movement, as can be seen by trying to enforce what pronouns people use or to consider pedophilia as part of that spectrum of varying sexual orientation. If anything, as gay or lesbian individuals, we should be more conscious of this nefarious agenda and should be fighting against it more than anyone else. We should be angry that people have taken our fight for equal rights and are using it as a Trojan Horse for imposing fascism and pathological behavior onto the rest of society.
And for the record, I am also a gay forum member. There are quite a few of us here, actually. Due to that fact, and the fact that we haven't been expelled for our sexuality, it should be obvious that this forum and FOTCM are not homophobic, which Perri475 would have realized if he stuck around long enough to see that this forum is simply not as black and white as he assumed by misinterpreting one article on SOTT that happens to point out discrepancies in the LGBT movement. The article raises valid questions and points that we should all be considering, although it's understandable why as gay people we would be more prone to react strongly against those points. I think part of it, too, is we feel that "straight" people have no right to comment on homosexuality because they haven't lived our experience and therefore couldn't possibly understand what it's like (which is true to some extent, but doesn't mean they can't understand the feelings of being ostracized, especially as members of this kind of forum that is already perceived as crazy by the majority of people, as Scottie pointed out) but perhaps that's what makes it easier for people who aren't homosexual to analyze the points Pierre raises? They aren't emotionally attached to or identified with the movement, therefore they may be more capable of seeing things within it that we may not be able to notice right away, kind of like how in the mirroring process of the Work other members here are able to see things about us individually that we may be blind to.
My two cents.
whitecoast said:
How specifically are gays oppressing straight people? By their speech? What is advocated (or “proselytized”) is inclusion of gays, not the exclusion of straights.
[/quote]
In my message quoted above (bold added) I mentioned the 'gay right movement' and no 'gays' because I think these are the pathological leaders who push the community towards proselytism and oppression (among other things).
Now, it's interesting that you conflated 'gay rights movement' and 'gays' although their interest are so opposite and a lot of gays do not identify at all with the gay right movement, its claims and its agenda.
I tried to find an 'oppressed' minority group that I and others in this forum could identify with and thought about the smokers group. As a smoker, I would like to smoke freely, however I don't want to bother non-smokers. In this sense, I don't want to have the right to blow my smoke in the face of non-smokers will not support a smokers group that follows such proselyte goals.
The above is actually very similar to what the gay right movement does. Take the gay 'pride' for example, it is basically an event where non-gays have to face sexually explicit gay scenes displayed in the public space.
whitecoast said:
Okay, i may understand where you come from: some people view negatively if there's affection shown between same sex individuals, while same behavior by straight people don't bother them. This can be even if it's totally minor thing like holding hands or hugging - which shouldn't be a problem.
I've sometimes heard especially older conservative generation saying something like "i don't mind what anyone does in private, as long as they don't rub it in my face". But one should accept that this just is the way it is: there's always gonna be people who simply won't accept homosexuality and that is probably the best deal you can get with them, i.e keep it in private and it's okay. That's still quite reasonable request to live with but i can also understand how it might make one feel. In ideal world people wouldn't be concerned about these things, but this place is far from it.
The way i mostly see the saying "orientation should be private matter" is this: most people don't want to see over the top displays of affection (of any orientation) in public, so it's externally considerate to behave according to this commonly accepted rule.
Seppo Ilmarinen said:
Unless you take into consideration the stats above: 97% hetero people and 3% or less LGBT/whatever.
Seppo Ilmarinen said:
Not only that, as Lobaczewski points out, it is hardwired in human beings to be antagonistic to significant differences. So if a group only constitutes 3% of a population, it would behoove them to NOT seek to stand out too sharply because they are activating an evolutionary response in the other 97%. I'm just afraid that when all this shakes down in the end, the tide is going to turn massively and that 97% is going to get ugly. If I were gay, I wouldn't want to be on a list anywhere. Simple survival strategy.
