Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[Kobi]

Interesting challenge Aj. Life is a series of negotiations and trade offs.

To answer the first part about gaining acceptance, to me, people are afraid of stuff they dont know or understand. It was always important to me to just live my life as I would regardless of who I slept with. Where I live made it a lot easier.

Most of the folks who had an issue with my queerness harbored a lot of misconceptions about who queers are. They didnt or didnt think they knew any gay people cuz the people they knew didnt act like "those other people".

Some folks dont like fitting in or assimilating. They see it as selling out. To me, it was and is a political statement. If people couldnt see me as the same as they were then the chances of changing their perceptions of queers were pretty slim. So, was there any harm in showing that queers got an education, worked, served on committees, took care of their elderly family, drove cars, had friendships and relationships, owned houses, did the mundane chores of existing? Not to me. The harm was them thinking or believing I was different from them.

As for trade offs and what I am willing to give up. When gay marriage became a legal option in Mass, it was a bittersweet thing to me. Nice to have the option for a legal recognition of a relationship and some "perks" that went along with this.

On the other hand, as with anything else, marriage means giving up some degree of independence and freedom. It means different expectations when dating. It means looking at relationships in a different way. It is a responsibility I gave some fantasy based thought to but now it was a reality I had to grapple with.

As for other "concession" type stuff. To me, if I want to be seen as a part of a community, I have a number of responsibilities. I may want to fly a gay pride flag from my deck. It might make me feel good to do so for any number of reasons. But, how might it impact those who live around me? Is that something I should take into account? Is it selling out or is it being mindful or respectful of others? Depends on your perspective I guess. To me, the world isnt going to stop spinning if I cant fly my flag.

I cant think of any situation where you get exactly everything you want without having some degree of trade off involved.

[CherylNYC]

The trade-off with gaining marriage equality is, well, gaining marriage equality. My friends who got married in their beautiful home outside North Hampton, Mass had already been together more than 1/4 century. They had no reason not to get married and lots of reasons to get married, particularly legal ones.

They own two properties together and one of them has had a health issue in the past. They, like all of us, are getting older. Now that it's legal to marry in their state, if they chose NOT to get married they could have signaled to anyone who wanted to challenge the legitimacy of their partnership that they weren't really partners after all. Families have been known to go after properties for lesser reasons after a death.

When we gain marriage equality we give up being allowed to stay together without any legal bond, but with the expectation in a fair minded community, and the hope in one that is less so, that our partnerships will be respected anyway when the doo-doo hits the fan.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

The trade-off with gaining marriage equality is, well, gaining marriage equality. My friends who got married in their beautiful home outside North Hampton, Mass had already been together more than 1/4 century. They had no reason not to get married and lots of reasons to get married, particularly legal ones.

They own two properties together and one of them has had a health issue in the past. They, like all of us, are getting older. Now that it's legal to marry in their state, if they chose NOT to get married they could have signaled to anyone who wanted to challenge the legitimacy of their partnership that they weren't really partners after all. Families have been known to go after properties for lesser reasons after a death.

When we gain marriage equality we give up being allowed to stay together without any legal bond, but with the expectation in a fair minded community, and the hope in one that is less so, that our partnerships will be respected anyway when the doo-doo hits the fan.

Not if your country recognises legal domestic partnership for any sex couples. There may be a registry or you may claim it by filing taxes together.

However, since in both cases the government legitimises one's partnership in order to grant legal rights (which is kind of necessary cause it's more difficult to prove after the fact, in court, the agreed depth and responsibilities of said relationship) there's not a hell of a lot of difference in my mind between them. Neither need a ceremony, both involve paperwork, both are ligitmised by the government.

My mom was the Domestic Partner of my step-dad. She didn't want to get married again. It allowed them legal rights in that she gets his pension now he's dead and they each had their own house, though he lived in hers and let his daughters live in his.

Marriage equality does not necessarily mean loss of recognised partnership in any other way. Many of my stright mates don't opt for marriage as they think it's terribly old fashioned and needless, seeing as there is domestic partnership laws. But they still have to declare their partnership on a tax form!

[Apocalipstic]

I am very Out. I will kiss a woman in public and hold hands....but no stickers of any kind on my car.

[atomiczombie]

I have lived in the SF Bay Area all my life, up until 3 years ago. Now I live about an hour away from Oakland, up on the Sacramento Delta. It's a tiny, almost completely white, tea-party kind of town. Back when I lived in the bay area, I had some not so cool things happen to me, but only once did I ever feel like I might be in physical danger (followed from my car to my apartment by a bunch of sneering teenage boys). Here in Rio Vista, I haven't had anything in the way of harassment.

My old car had an HRC sticker on the bumper for several years, and someone tried to scratch it off at one point (unsuccessfully lol). My new car, which I got last November, I have yet to put any stickers on it. However, I recently went back to the Bay Area to have lunch with a buddy of mine, and we came out of the restaurant to find someone had keyed the front of my car on the hood and headlights. So, even in the SF Bay shitty stuff goes on. There is just less of a chance of physical harm than, say, parts of the mid-west or the south. But it happens. Even in the Castro in SF, gay men get bashed occasionally. Does that mean I think people should be closeted for their own safety? Depends on the level of safety or lack there of. But being in the closet doesn't ever help us get more acceptance. About that I am very sure.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

For me the phrase "tolerance is not enough" refers to societal and institutional relationships with us, rather than each and every individual asshat. And in that context I agree that tolerance is not enough. Because tolerance is temporary. Tolerance is "for now because I have to" or "for now because it's more trouble not to." When the conditions around the "for now" change, the tolerance can go away. Acceptance is more like "okay, this is the new reality." And while on the individual asshat level, I'm fine with the former, on the institutional level I definitely want the latter.

[dreadgeek]

SA Ma'am;

This is one of those sad truths about our species that I wish were not true about our species. The *best* we can do is make certain that whatever the person's prejudice, they cannot make it *our* problem. Let us admit that unless we are willing to see society become extraordinarily *less* free--which I guarantee you would rebound to our sorrow--all we can do is make the discrimination illegal. After that, it is on a one-to-one basis. We win people over, one interaction at a time. It is illegal to discriminate in housing, education, employment and public accommodation based upon the color of one's skin or one's gender. Has that stopped people from holding bigoted or sexist views? No. Has it made any nation that has adopted such laws a paradise of racial harmony? Not hardly. It has drastically raised the stakes for behaving in a bigoted fashion in the aforementioned. As a *process*--and that is what I think we can change directly are processes--we can constrain by law whether or not someone can decide to not rent to transgendered person purely because they are transgendered. We can mandate that the relevant factors for, say, employment do not include race or sexual orientation or gender presentation or what-have-you.

We cannot make it so that those laws are unnecessary. Not without severely restricting the freedom of others to express beliefs that we might find abhorrent.

Tolerance, to me, is living in a nation of people where some non-trivial number of them believe, things that I might find either offensive or blindingly wrong, but not letting that get in the way of having good interactions with them. Acceptance is simply not allowing some trait to have unnecessary meaning. By that I mean, as I've stated when talking about 'color blindness' that the problem isn't that someone notices that I am black. The problem is caused when they attach *meaning* to my being black beyond what that characteristic can justify. My blackness gives no one any insight into my character, competence, intelligence, generosity, honesty or any other relevant trait. Bigotry is when someone takes my being black to mean that they *do* have insight into my character, that their insight is accurate *because* of my race, and to then treat me accordingly as someone lacking in one or more desirable character traits.

If my neighbors are giving me the stink-eye, then they are not tolerating me. What is happening is that they are restrained from making their feelings known to me in a more direct sense only because of the law and social stigma. If my neighbors invite me over for BBQ, say hello and generally treat me as just another neighbor, then they are *at worst* tolerating me and if they are not already accepting, then may very well be on the road to acceptance. Acceptance, to me, is when my neighbor, upon hearing someone make a derisive remark about queer people says "you know, the ladies across the street are nothing like what you say and given that they're really nice and you're obviously an asshole, I'd prefer their company over yours any day".

All the above can be true without, even once, us ever having a conversation on the topic of "do you accept homosexuals".

My forty-five years black in this nation has certainly taught me that bigotry cannot be legislated away. The direct expression of bigotry can be legislated away and then, slowly, painfully, never-fast-enough, people's minds are changed. As was pointed out by a couple of people, the *best* predictor for how someone feels about enshrining equality for queer people under the law is whether that person has an intimate who is queer. It cuts across most other demographics. Laws--or really just folding us into most existing anti-discrimination laws--can create conditions *enough* that contacts will happen. After that, what will happen is that people will start working next to the queer guy and he'll *stop* being whatever bigoted image the person was raised with and become the guy who helped them out when they were under the gun at work. They'll start living next to a queer couple and they'll no longer be the folks who are a threat to families but the one's who, when the kids got home and no one was there, contacted the parents and drove the kids to the babysitter. That makes them a neighbor.

Look, let us say that there are, essentially, three sides in the national argument about the place of queer people in society. There's our side. Their's the anti-queer people. There's the vast majority of people who hold no active hostility about queers but haven't really thought about us very much. The preference of the first two groups is to win by fiat. The religious right, if given half a chance, would simply make being queer illegal and be done with it. If given a chance, particularly after some infuriating outrage, we would take the easy route and simply pass a law making it illegal to be anti-queer or express such sentiments. The religious right can conceivably have their way. We *never* can. We simply lack any possibility of a majority. So we must win by persuasion. We must win over as many people in the non-aligned group as we can. We do not need ALL of them, we need enough that they are allies and we and our allies are then a majority. This is, essentially, the strategy any numerically overwhelmed group must do--win the argument.

That means that while our opponents *never* have to be realistic, we *always* have to be realistic. That means we have to determine not what the best world would be, but what is the best *achievable* world given the species we have to work with and the fact that we cannot impose our will upon the majority.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

So, even in the SF Bay shitty stuff goes on. There is just less of a chance of physical harm than, say, parts of the mid-west or the south. But it happens. Even in the Castro in SF, gay men get bashed occasionally. Does that mean I think people should be closeted for their own safety? Depends on the level of safety or lack there of. But being in the closet doesn't ever help us get more acceptance. About that I am very sure.

Agreed. I would also like to note that being closeted takes an emotional toll, it is psychological violence in a way. So it's a balancing act between the threat of physical (or financial) harm vs the emotional harm of the closet. Each person has to determine where that balancing point is for themselves, of course, but being closeted isn't necessarily "safe" so much as exchanging one type of risk for another.

[dreadgeek]

Kobi:

Thank you for this. These are the questions I think we have to address as a community. It is one thing to say "queer people should be free" it is another thing to determine what freedom is and to understand our part of the bargain. As a nation, we've become so accustomed to asking the question "what's in it for me" while ignoring that the other woman is probably asking herself the same question. Once we recognize that others also have agendas and that your agenda and my agenda may not be identical we can then start doing politics. Politics is the art of the possible. Not the ideal. The possible.

Your examples are precisely the kinds of trade-offs that I think we, as a community, need to start asking ourselves.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Kobi

Interesting challenge Aj. Life is a series of negotiations and trade offs.

To answer the first part about gaining acceptance, to me, people are afraid of stuff they dont know or understand. It was always important to me to just live my life as I would regardless of who I slept with. Where I live made it a lot easier.

Most of the folks who had an issue with my queerness harbored a lot of misconceptions about who queers are. They didnt or didnt think they knew any gay people cuz the people they knew didnt act like "those other people".

Some folks dont like fitting in or assimilating. They see it as selling out. To me, it was and is a political statement. If people couldnt see me as the same as they were then the chances of changing their perceptions of queers were pretty slim. So, was there any harm in showing that queers got an education, worked, served on committees, took care of their elderly family, drove cars, had friendships and relationships, owned houses, did the mundane chores of existing? Not to me. The harm was them thinking or believing I was different from them.

As for trade offs and what I am willing to give up. When gay marriage became a legal option in Mass, it was a bittersweet thing to me. Nice to have the option for a legal recognition of a relationship and some "perks" that went along with this.

On the other hand, as with anything else, marriage means giving up some degree of independence and freedom. It means different expectations when dating. It means looking at relationships in a different way. It is a responsibility I gave some fantasy based thought to but now it was a reality I had to grapple with.

As for other "concession" type stuff. To me, if I want to be seen as a part of a community, I have a number of responsibilities. I may want to fly a gay pride flag from my deck. It might make me feel good to do so for any number of reasons. But, how might it impact those who live around me? Is that something I should take into account? Is it selling out or is it being mindful or respectful of others? Depends on your perspective I guess. To me, the world isnt going to stop spinning if I cant fly my flag.

I cant think of any situation where you get exactly everything you want without having some degree of trade off involved.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Interesting challenge Aj. Life is a series of negotiations and trade offs.

To answer the first part about gaining acceptance, to me, people are afraid of stuff they dont know or understand. It was always important to me to just live my life as I would regardless of who I slept with. Where I live made it a lot easier.

Most of the folks who had an issue with my queerness harbored a lot of misconceptions about who queers are. They didnt or didnt think they knew any gay people cuz the people they knew didnt act like "those other people".

Some folks dont like fitting in or assimilating. They see it as selling out. To me, it was and is a political statement. If people couldnt see me as the same as they were then the chances of changing their perceptions of queers were pretty slim. So, was there any harm in showing that queers got an education, worked, served on committees, took care of their elderly family, drove cars, had friendships and relationships, owned houses, did the mundane chores of existing? Not to me. The harm was them thinking or believing I was different from them.

As for trade offs and what I am willing to give up. When gay marriage became a legal option in Mass, it was a bittersweet thing to me. Nice to have the option for a legal recognition of a relationship and some "perks" that went along with this.

On the other hand, as with anything else, marriage means giving up some degree of independence and freedom. It means different expectations when dating. It means looking at relationships in a different way. It is a responsibility I gave some fantasy based thought to but now it was a reality I had to grapple with.

As for other "concession" type stuff. To me, if I want to be seen as a part of a community, I have a number of responsibilities. I may want to fly a gay pride flag from my deck. It might make me feel good to do so for any number of reasons. But, how might it impact those who live around me? Is that something I should take into account? Is it selling out or is it being mindful or respectful of others? Depends on your perspective I guess. To me, the world isnt going to stop spinning if I cant fly my flag.

I cant think of any situation where you get exactly everything you want without having some degree of trade off involved.

I can't either, Kobi. There many things that I just don't believe the world will stop spinning over if I don't have my way. And some things are just more important than others and serve building more positive relations among differing peoples.

I love my neighborhood and feel totally accepted as part of it. Exercising common courtesy as a neighbor has contributed to this- BY ALL that I share my block with. I join in with neighborhood Watch and Take Back the Night activities and meetings. I let folks know when something they do has an impact on me (like allowing their dog to bark at night), but also make changes for others when they let me know about something I do- like changing to a lower wattage porch bulb that shines into their bedroom window.

My neighbors see me sometimes in men's formal wear and a couple at first took a double take- then asked if I was going to something special. I have had more than one fruitful conversation about the B-F dynamic as a butch lesbian. I have learned that there are leather straight couples nearby that have had their own share of feeling "different" or weird.

My adjacent neighbors check on me when they see I am having major problems with my joints and pain- and call or stop by and offer to go to the store if I am not getting out. They also stop by and say "Great" when I am doing well.

My neighborhood is multi-cultural and racial, lower-middle class and working class with a couple of professionals scattered about. There are 2 lesbian couples that are main-stream lesbian and me. There are home owners and renters. Our age range is 6 months to 92 a (just lost our 94 you and a woman that was 103).

I don't go naked in my yard because my next-door neighbors have their grand kids over a lot and there is just not good privacy between our yards. I do, however, go in my spa (when it worked) nude because I built privacy around it- for myself and my neighbors. Its called respecting other people. I watch my mouth when working in the yard- which sometimes I have to remind myself, because the old couple behind me doesn't like foul language. It is just not a big deal to me to do this. They have stopped using any poison for rodents around their yard at my request. The stay at home, mother of 3 4 houses down apologized to me after Prop 8 passed in 2010 in CA. She has also talked to me about one of her sons being gay or perhaps trans and sought out support for him. I don't park my car hanging over other people's drive ways, or bang trash cans late at night because I think about my neighbors- and they return this courtesy.

Reciprocity and realizing that we all have boundaries is just important. If I had moved here and not gotten to know my neighbors or assumed that ever one of them was going to be against me or had no interest in learning who I am, I would not be very happy here at all. I don't feel like I compromise who I am at all. I feel like I am surrounded by good people that want to share who they are as well and that I am actually not all that different.

Yes, there is one man that I don't care for and have had words with. Nothing is ever perfect. And I am not the only person on earth. Nor do I want to be. I'm also not a very defensive person overall. I try not to jump to conclusions and figure out what is really going on with people.

I had a situation in which I rented a room to a queer friend in which the person had no regard for my neighbors and had to kick her out. There was no way that I was going to allow her total disregard for community cooperation to ruin my relationships with my neighbors. The compalints were numerous and well founded. This is my neighborhood and she would just be moving out eventually- I, however, will remain here and have worked hard to build relationships with these people. I had to choose between our friendship and my neighborhood. Not fun, but necessary.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Walk me through this, Snowy. In your world, please explain how this works:

1) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you. What does he do?

Well the guy across the street sneers, the lady behind us looks at us like she's smelling shit or shakes her head, the other two besides us now ignore us and keep their kids away.

2) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you and sneers. What happens then?

I say nothing, we say nothing. what can we say we can't change their minds about not liking homos and them thinking we're disgusting and going to hell.

In your world CAN your neighbor think a thought that is anti-gay? he ifcan't, why can't he? if he can, what are the consequences of him doing so. You say this is your right to have this. So what does a world in which your right is protected look like?

Cheers
Aj ___________


I moved recently from a world that was pretty good for *me* where I lived, Columbus is kind of a secret cause no one really knows what a great city it is. I never had a problem with a neighbor due to me being queer, not even when I walked out in full leathers. If something did happen the police were there, our rental place took care of it and at work it was no issue since our project manager was gay.


This new world I am living in there is rare times of acceptance, rare understanding and togetherness. This is not only cause of the queer issue I'm stuck in limbo right now because of race and class issues amongst what has gone on here. I feel tolerated but not the the point where it's accepted. Make sense?


I am at the point that I don't care what the neighbors think because I have done everything to be nice and friendly. I don't try no more it's been a year, my kid don't need to be hanging out there because frankly why would I let him? So to answer the neighbors can keep being jerks as long as I am not and I keep working on my house, taking my kid to boxing or any other sport and well packing up going to the beach. Hell even then it's problematic.


I may come back and add more I figured I would come in so it did not look like I was ignoring the questions. It may take a couple more days cause this thread is making me think a lot.

Thanks and sorry if my answers don't make sense

To me acceptance is never changing as for tolerance can and will change with conditions. I hope that changes as time goes on here, people are pretty closeted here if they are queer, they are quiet it about it and discreet I'm not used to it cause of having always lived in areas that were queer friendly.