you need some more lgbt friends - preferably from a more diverse group (4.00 / 1)

I have something of a working theory on how much LGBT individuals who live in places where you rarely see hate crimes- liberal urban areas like where I live, for example- will care about this getting done. Or how much those who work in environments where they don't live under the fear of being fired for coming out will appreciate ENDA when it's done. To some of my friends here, hate crimes is small-ball. One friend even called the Matthew Shepard Act "soooo 1996". To them, they care a little bit for people who live in constant fear of harassment or violence, but care more about DOMA and DADT being repealed- something that affects them more directly. I'll be interested to see if the reactions of the LGBT community at large are the same.

okay, firstly, there are on an ongoing basis extremely violent hate crimes in some of the gayest places in the united states, like new york, even given the level of underreporting of hate crimes.  here you go - october 12, 2009 as one example.  And if queens does not count as new york, then you can read about the ones from 2008.

secondly, yes, people tend to care about what they are directly affected by or familiar with unless they are safe enough not to be and can start caring about whatever they want (i.e. class, race, gender, sexual orientation, age and other factors exist and have an influence on people's politics and a mark of cumulative privilege is that you are hypothetically in a position to start picking and choosing issues rather than having your politics dictated to you to some extent by necessity).  

thirdly, how are your friends actually affected by don't ask don't tell?  are they in the military?  doesn't this undermine your argument?

fourthly, these points that you have made about the relative privilege of the group of LGBT people and allies you're around should inform how we read statements like this:

"HRC deserves a huge slap on the back."  

I realise the statement was in reference to a different charge than the class, race, gender, etc bias of their agenda, structure, and tactics at a national level, but it is not surprising given what you've outlined above that there is a defense of HRC here.  If you're going to give them a huge slap on the back for this, then why don't you also give them a huge slap on the back for helping throw the 2004 election to Bush and all that ensued from that by idiotically pursuing marriage through the courts rather than pursuing some kind of democratic, let alone social democratic strategy.  they put a huge amount of work into that flawed strategy.  how about giving them a huge slap on the back for helping to undermine health care reform by endorsing joe lieberman and susan collins among others.  in other words - as a progressive, do you REALLY think they are doing all that they can, are structured in the most democratic way they can be, are reflective enough of the various communities whose interests they claim to serve as they say they are?  If not, maybe we should save the kudos for a more democratic moment.

finally, if you are an ally of lgbt people and not lgbt yourself, why are you injecting yourself in such an uninformed and unthoughtful way into a contentious debate among lgbt people regarding strategy, goals, race, gender, demographics, politics, agenda, and other areas?  i don't mean to be rude and i say this granting that i value the role that allies play and my own role when i am an ally, and i think overdeference and fear can be damaging, but at the same time - half ass theories about things that affect some of our lives very deeply and more relevantly our community's politics need to be a bit more thought out before they're presented in such a way.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 23:34:57 PM UTC

revision (0.00 / 0)

deep apologies for one aspect of the last paragraph - i had misread and believed that chris had written this post which is why i was writing as if you were an ally rather than an lgbt person.  many apologies for making that mistake.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 23:38:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A coupla things (0.00 / 0)

1. That's very true, but that's their opinion. I'm reporting, not validating. It's a potential problem to be aware of, take it as you will.

2. On DADT, again, I'm reporting observations, not validating. This is not "my" argument. Shouting at me doesn't solve the problem. But if you asked me to speculate, you could make an argument that DADT leads to a worse-off national defense, and amounts to a gross waste of their taxpayer dollars, yes, that matters more to certain individuals than ENDA or hate crimes.

3. On HRC, I am sure there are a number of people- Iowans, Massachusetts residents, and perhaps even Californians, for example- that would take issue with your assertion that moving through the courts is "idiotic". As would a number of law professors I know.

But in general, if you're going to be forever mad at an organization for actions they take, and refuse to recognize good, hard, effective work when they do it, then good luck with that. That accounts for many progressive organizations who I have not always agreed with, and have criticized when I need to, but work- and praise- when I can and it's deserved. Otherwise there are fewer and fewer allies.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 01:13:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's not about being forever mad (0.00 / 0)

You wrote a post a few weeks ago which defended HRC from claims that it was infused with an overly White racial politics, an overly male gender politics, and an overly classist class politics and later argued it was good to centralise funding for the LGBT movement and NGOs that work in it through that vehical.  You've now written a post in which you've said that you think people are informed by their social position in terms of waht they value, but that doesn't seem to impact on the first argument you made and instead we are asked to 'get over it.'

The tone I've adopted is probably wrong, but if you are going to make arguments that use phrases like 'scary rich white guys' and defend them and then not incorporate the acknowledged and understood aspect of the demographics and structure and funding of an organisation, then you should expect some flak, no?

Of course I would work with HRC if the moment suits and it makes sense.  And HRC is not a homogenous organisation.  In a quick hit I posted the other day by Kenyon Farrow, one of the comments that followed the article that was very interesting was from a local LGBT activist who articulated a clear reason for working with HRC on the ground and I can appreciate that.  And I can take from that the basica lesson - oh okay it's not HRC, it's NATIONAL HRC and I should be clear about that.

But that is not what you've presented - you've simply taken the arguments against HRC and then said 'well, they're not true' as if the history doesn't matter, the fact that they are benefiting from yes, a slightly changed strategy and awareness, but more so the product of their work but also many structural changes, is relevant.

To dismiss any acknowledgement of the past consequences of their work is not as easy for me as for you.  If LGBT peopel in Massachusetts benefited from a court fight, what about all the extra people in Iraq who died because of the election of Bush in 2004 or the impact of various conservative Senators like Joe Lieberman being in office on the health care debate, etc. or manyo ther thigns.  A bit more of a jaded eye is called for under the circumstances, or at least, a more thorough and less dismissive analysis of criticisms of the organisation that your'e seeking to defend.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 15:19:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Woah (0.00 / 0)

You are taking a lot of what I am saying and either misinterpreting it or twisting it dramatically.

1. I didn't say it was good to always centralize funding. I said HRC helps aggregate donors in one collective setting (the dinner, for example) and that helps non-profit types access them. That is a positive thing. There's a difference between that and saying that should be the universal model. What I prefer is not having barriers to access, non-profit types personally knowing lots and lots of donors, and so forth.

2. What did I ask you to get over? I said that people are indeed impacted by their social setting, and that's a concern. I said I had a working theory that a lot of individuals who live and work in certain settings don't care about hate crimes and ENDA. I didn't defend them- show me where I did. I didn't say they shouldn't care. I didn't say that's the way it should be. I said it exists, and it's a problem. It is more a musing of mine- hence the term, "working theory"- than some breakthrough novel argument I plan on publishing and defending. So what are you all worked up about?

3. On HRC, show me where I said "well, they're not true" re historical arguments you made.

4. On HRC, I didn't say history doesn't matter. I said it's unstrategic to stay forever mad at an organization, and that I think it's important to recognize good, effective actions. I don't understand why you think it's necessary that when I take a second to applaud worthwhile, effective action by an allied organization, it's important for you to gripe about actions in 2004 as a response. What useful goal does that accomplish?

5. Re the usefulness of having a jaded eye, again, I have a bunch of problems with HRC, but does jaded eye mean it's important to refuse to recognize a positive action by an allied organization? Or should I have said something like "well, HRC has done ABCDE in the past that has sucked, and they're too rich white and gay, and too corporate, and too XYZ, but, well, um, I guess for this one instance they didn't fuck up, so, er, thanks HRC, or something." Is that the kind of jaded you would prefer? And what useful goal does that accomplish?


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 21:30:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

number 5 (0.00 / 0)

would acknowledge the existence of hrc's many critics and the people who have been harmed by their actions and show that you care that they exist.  

instead of using an argument like well, they're a 'rich, white guy' organisation (to which i would add 'american') and then saying that there's nothing that can be done about that further than has been done already and not looking at what the consequences are of that.  i agree with you that it's a symptom of a larger problemm, but it's not enough to simply say it exists and that griping about it is not useful.

i'm sorry i've taken the tone that i have because you're obviously sympathetic to some degree to what i'm saying, but your post several weeks ago on the HRC dinner has really triggered me.  people who are in a position of power in the progressive movement, including bloggers, really need to undersatnd that being progressive on one or several fronts doesn't immunise you from taking responsibility for what you say and the effects it might have.

frankly, granting the progress that hrc has made and that the problem is with most national policy/lobbying groups on all issues, there is no indication to me that their power has been broken in the itnersts of democratic grassroots organising.  that is not to dismiss the work they do do at the grassroots and which i have to laern more about or to dismiss the change that has been made or to dismiss the valid poitns you make about choosing one's tone - but i think in this case, for me, angry and embittered are the right tone - but it's direcgted at HRC and the other groups mnentioned above, not at you, beyond where you have put yourself in the firing line by actively mounting a defense of them and using fairly dismissive language in combination with very provocative language (like 'rich white guy').

anyway, i'm happy to read a response, but i don't think this conversation continued is necessarily going to go very far and I don't want to continue to rail unproductively - not really fair to you or to me for taht matter, but i don't think i can do much more than that.  so i'll leave off here, but will read a response if you write one.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 17:38:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Many Hate Crimes in DC/Dupont Circle (0.00 / 0)

I can think of several hate crimes, over the years, in gay friendly areas in DC which is why the DC Police got around to forming a special unit of gay officers.  I've been in DC for 20 years and can remember at least 5 murders (most recently a waiter at Annie's Steak House) targeting gays and many, many assaults in places like Logan Circle & Capitol Hill.  Of course, most crimes against gays are not motivated by hate -- just regular urban crime -- but there have been many, many cases where it has come out that gays were targeted and singled out for special, aggrevated violence.  

---

by: howardpark @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 00:55:47 AM UTC

Sure (0.00 / 0)

There was one recently in Logan Circle a few blocks from where I live. My boyfriend was attacked on R Street, too. I'm talking about the perception that there isn't. There's an amazing raw belief that there are none in DC among tons of younger gay people I know.

And yes, you're right that many are not motivated by hate specifically. My boyfriend's was just teenagers being assholes.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 01:16:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

I can understand DOMA affecting their lives directly... but DADT?  Are most of your friends planning to or currently serving in the military?  If not, then I don't understand why they feel that is more important than the Shepard Act.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:17:54 AM UTC

Nor I (0.00 / 0)

But see my reply above for speculation.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:41:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Milwaukee Wisconsin here (0.00 / 0)

On #4 above I agree completely with those that say the Hate Crimes Act passage will cost more than it's worth.

The bill will do nothing to end hatred of gays nor crimes against us. Meanwhile, Obama gets hurrahs from supposedly pro-gay institutions like HRC and buys time to delay taking immediate action to end don't ask don't tell and repealing the defense of marriage act.

Sadly, Obama doesn't care about the punishment gays suffer under the abusive laws enforced by don't ask don't tell and the defense of marriage act. Sadder still, he unctuously talks like he understands it but he doesn't have a clue.  

#4 here should be number one. Don't know who you are Adam Bink, but you're out of touch.

---

by: NealB2 @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 03:00:50 AM UTC

Tell that to Matthew Shepard. (4.00 / 2)

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 03:42:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]