Jefferson does not sound so much like a staid homophobe, as a condescending concern troll. There are several problems with this logic of respectability. In the main, it's premised on the notion that a "protest march" is an adequate synonym for a "pride parade." It is not. There are certainly elements of protest in a "gay pride parade." But, if I may be so bold as to speak for the other side, the primary goal isn't to affect policy change.Looking at King, however, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd been picked up in the winter. As natty as a movie star in a gray wool suit and pressed white shirt, his eyes remain calm beneath the shade of a wide-brimmed fedora. It's a gentleman's outfit, similar to others he often wore to appear in public, and it must have been a horribly uncomfortable get-up on such a muggy day, not to mention in a dank prison cell.
Fast forward five decades to the civil rights movement currently at the forefront of American politics and minds: that of the LGBT community, which has been on a roller-coaster ride in recent weeks. There have been notable successes (marriage rights affirmed in six states) and surprising failures (the endurance of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy). This month, hundreds of thousands of men and women around the world will take to the streets to march for visibility and solidarity in gay pride parades. Much like Dr. King before them, the LGBT marchers ask simply for the basic rights granted other Americans--the right to work, the right to safety, the right to equality.
Unlike Dr. King, few of them will appear in suits.
...at the risk of sounding like a staid homophobe, I'm often left wondering where the pride part comes in.
This leads to the second problem of asking people in a Gay Pride parades to play by a set of rules (wearing a suit) that you wouldn't ask of anyone else. But that's because the job of parade participants is, evidently, to make homophobes more comfortable:
The annual marches ultimately accomplish two things: They entertain those of us--gay and straight--who already wholeheartedly support the cause of equal rights for the LGBT community, and they feed into the rotten stereotypes of bigots, the same people who fear gay Boy Scout leaders and consider same-sex marriage "deviant."And then this:
I wish I could say that no bigots are going to use pictures of a few men in thongs in San Francisco to write off millions of gay, lesbian and transgender people, but I can't. There's a lot at stake right now. The community is on the verge, perhaps, of a tipping point for rights and acceptance.There is a deeply insidious logic at work here. It is of a piece with the racist who claims to not hate black people, but holds them responsible for the 15-year old with his pants hanging off his ass. Or the misogynist who claims to love women, but holds them all responsible for the gold-digger around the corner. Jefferson isn't arguing for this logic--he's just lending it credence.
The final insult to oppressed people, is always to make them responsible for the venal stupidity of their oppressors. The bigots core refrain is never "I hate you," but "Why are you making me hate you?" Left unsaid in all this is why, precisely, some guy in San Fran wearing a thong is so offensive. Instead it asks gay people everywhere to adjust. It's not enough to be hated by the homophobe, now you must wash his laundry too.
I don't much like gay pride parades. I don't much like any parade. Hordes of people marching in the same direction always make me feel like I should be going the other way. Especially when they're yelling. But that's my problem--it isn't the job of a gay pride parade to make me comfortable. Or any parade.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I get your point, but I get Mr. Jefferson's point too.
If perception trumps reality, giving your enemy bullets to shoot you with is kind of stupid.
And the perception of Gay Pride parades for many, is that they are representative of Gay behavior.
It's ignorant, I know, but some of the more flamboyant behaviors in a Gay Pride Parade reinforce the ignorant perceptions of the Gay Haters.
Depriving them of that bullet seems a smart strategy to me.
Asking pride parades to "deprive" bigots of the "bullets" of their usual efflorescent celebrations is like asking the civil rights movement to give up gospel songs. "Don't you know that white bigots will make fun of Fannie Lou Hamer singing 'This Little Light of Mine,' I mean, what SERIOUS people sing stuff like that? Won't that make the white bigots hate them and make fun of them even more?!!!!
Singing gospel songs is a tradition that comes from using a weapon (the Bible) against one's oppressors. Why should fashion, which owes an incalculable amount to LGBT designers even as social norms dictated that only "respectable" things be worn and "respectable" sexuality expressed, be any different?
I don't think that's a valid analogy.
Gramsci's analogy's not that far off, though I'm not sure I'd have picked gospel songs as my example. It works on two levels. First, pride parades aren't just (or even primarily) about convincing straight people to quit hating gays -- they're about reinforcing and celebrating a sense of community among gays. Second, there's something inherently corrosive about policing members of one's own for characteristics that one believes are the causes of bigotry against your group. That's what "A Soldier's Story" was all about.
I'm with Patrick, that's a really weak analogy. In the end, this is an argument for pragmatism pure and simple, which is to say that it’s an argument that suggests that a group consider the consequences of certain actions prior to acting.
And the perception of Gay Pride parades for many, is that they are representative of Gay behavior.
You know, I went to Boston's Pride parade last weekend. It was full of church groups, school groups, employee associations, a marching band, a bunch of sports clubs....gay behavior.
Yeah, seriously. The average pride parade's about as flamboyant as a St. Pat's Day parade, and it has fewer drunks. And I have yet to see anything from a pride parade that you won't see at Mardi Gras.
I also have to add that it's pretty telling when Cord starts his whole worrywart argument by referring to an article about pride parades from the Onion.
Speaking of school groups marching in Pride parades:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1622677,CST-EDT-edit15a.article
I've never once worn a thong to march in pride, and I've still ha threats, I still get bigoted comments, and I still have less rights if I decide to marry a man. No amount of wearing swanky suits to pride is going to stop that.
Simply put, unless this is your revolution, telling us how to dress is *really obnoxious*. Heck, even then it's obnoxious. We have our own revolution. It's not the same as the Civil Rights revolution in all aspects. Stonewall was started by drag queens, and we're not hiding that part of our history just to placate people like you or Mr. Jefferson. If you can't accept us as who we are unless we conform, we're not really free.
OK, I'm not done. I have to reply to this.
If I can't have an opinion, and express it respectfully, simply because I'm not gay, then you are on your own.
I withdraw my support for equal rights.
I really hope you are trying to joke here, Patrick, because otherwise your commitment to social justice hedges on whether or not a gay person is nice to you in a blog comment.
I'm with Persia on this.
Also, how exactly did you read "you aren't allowed to express an opinion" into Josh Jasper's statement. What he said is that being told how to dress by some outsider is really obnoxious. Expressing frustration is not the same as attempting to shut down a conversation. If anything, it can be an attempt to open a conversation. So why not cool down and talk, huh?
I withdraw my support for equal rights.
You never had any in the first place.
@ Persia
Yes, Pesia, I should have included the /obvioussarcasm tag.
We homos could also give up being gay, if that would make you more comfortable. It would certainly deprive haters of a 'bullet'.
My first reply was too tart, I think. Sorry about that.
The less annoyed version of what I wanted to say is something like this: Saying you want to look respectable so as to deprive haters of their stereotypes against you is a fearful and, I think ultimately losing strategy.
I just don't think this or that specific behavior (or stylistic choice) is really what motivates the haters. It's not as though, if all gays everywhere started acting more bourgeois than the bourgeoisie, the haters would realize they had been wrong all along.
It works in exactly the other direction: they hate gays because they hate gays - because of religion, or tradition, or because it grosses them out - and they'll seize on anything they can to justify that hate. If the Thong Brigade at Pride didn't exist, if every Pride parade everywhere somehow successfully stamped them out once and for all, the homophobes would surely have to invent them.
But hey, say you're right and I'm wrong, and the visuals at Pride really are giving more fuel to the haters and turning off people who are on the fence (the latter of which is what I'm assuming you're more worried about). Even then, prioritizing 'respectability' should give us pause. As another commentator here already said, it would be a lie to only present the most non-threatening face of homosexuality to the public in the hopes that, if we lock all the weirdos in the basement and demand they shut up, maybe the straights will let us have some rights. Kowtowing to what we think the mainstream isn't afraid of divides the queer community in an ugly way (for instance: this debate, which is perennial in queer circles), and it underestimates the extent to which the rest of the world can, in fact, actually "get used to it".
I also meant to say that I agree with your "going the other way" statement.
It's the same motivation when I hear "It's the BEST SELLING CAR IN AMERICA" that causes me to mutter under my breath "Well you can bet your ass I'll never buy one".
Joe.My.God re-printed his response to the "expunge the queer" brigades.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/06/watching-defectives.html
Thanks for that link. This is it exactly: "But the resultant bland, humorless, "normal" gay parade wouldn't change the course of the gay movement one bit. The part of straight America that is repulsed by drag queens is quite possibly even more terrified by the so-called "normal" gays, because "those clever calculating creatures look JUST LIKE US, and can infiltrate and get access to our precious children. And that's been their disgusting plan all along, of course."
As I perceive it, the parade is called "pride" because it's about freedom from shame. It's not about trying to change legislation. It's a celebration of everything LGBT. Which, thank God, includes men in peacock feathers and dykes on bikes.
Exactly this.
I don’t know. I think the world needs its pragmatists at least as much as it needs revolutionary idealists.
Right. When it's a movement aimed at political change--like the marches of the Civil Rights movemnt. But no one would ever call the march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge a "parade." It isn't the same thing.
You might make this critique of, say, the anti-war marches back in 2002, or the pro-immigration marches from a couple years ago. But marching for the rights of immigrants, isn't the same as, say, marching in the Puerto-Rican Day Parade--for many reasons. But among them is the fact that one has, as its organizing purpose, the desire to affect policy change. The other does not.
I think worst of all, if you wanted to critique the efficacy of gay rights protests, you actually could. There have been many, many, many public well-covered marches against Prop 8, or for gay marriage. But instead we're here talking about a parade.
Your argument insists that the Gay Haters make a distinction between a parade and a march.
I don't think we can count on them to make that distinction.
Screw the Gay Haters.
Our existence, not our parades, is what they're up in arms about. We can be as "normal" as folks want us to be, but the fact that we exist is what the tighty righties are all upset about.
And your argument is that Gay Haters' real problem with gays boils down to some dudes in San Fran who, on one day, out of the year decide to play dress-up.
Honestly, there will always be gay haters, and it's not up to others to help them make distinctions between parades and marches. Maybe what a parade as celebration does is inspire the gay haters' son, daughter, niece, nephew, co-worker, etc., to out themselves, which is just about the most fool proof way for gay haters to change their minds.
I don’t disagree with the distinction between a parade and a march. I don’t think it’s the weakest analogy in the world, but it ain’t the best one either. I do think there is some clear desire for political and cultural acceptance built into every gay pride parade, but you’re right, the tone and the focus is on something else that forever separates parades from marches. That being said, I still think it’s fair to make a call towards pragmatism even in the instances where the goals are more amorphous. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think people should always heed the call.
Breaker,
You are calling for people in a parade to "be pragmatic." A parade, dude.
I'm not, though. He is. I'm saying that I think it's fair to make the call. I think there is a point in there, and a rational purpose for making the call. I think it's also fair to ignore the call.
Me? I'm with you. I don't like parades, either. I especially hate the Halloween Parade in the Village.
I was actually interested to find this out:
On nycpride.org, they call the parade THE MARCH.
On sfpride.org, here is the mission statement (noting the references to liberation):
"The Mission of the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee is to educate the World, commemorate our heritage, celebrate our culture, and liberate our people."
"The San Francisco Pride Celebration Committee is a non-profit membership organization founded to produce the San Francisco Pride Celebration & Parade. With its office located at the SF LGBT Community Center, SF Pride is dedicated to education, to the commemoration of LGBT heritage and to the celebration of LGBT culture and liberation."
Apparently the theme for this year's parade is "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union."
I think my general point is that these are undeniably political events bent specifically on effecting policy change. They are also celebrations, which sort of sets them apart, limits their focus and their effectiveness. But I think it's inaccurate to say that they are not about policy change.
Of course, but if you re-read my post that isn't what I said:
Here is another way of thinking about it: Would there have been a march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge if the South weren't segregated? Probably not. Has Mass. legalizing gay marriage ended the Gay Pride Parade? No it hasn't.
Again, one seeks as it's primary--indeed sole--goal to change a policy. The other doesn't.
Yeah, I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I think we're dangerously close to a semantic debate about the meaning of "policy change." I do think they are absolutely about effecting policy change, but I do not think they are necessarily about effecting specific policy change.
Not to beat the horse, but the difference isn't over "policy change," it's over "primary." My contention is simple: The PRIMARY goal of a Gay Pride Parade isn't to affect a policy change. The PRIMARY--indeed the SOLE--goal of marching across the Edmund Peittis Bridge was.
And here's where we get into the semantic debate. My argument would be that the political goals are inseparable from the primary goal. Even if you remove "liberation" from the list of primary goals of the San Francisco Pride Parade, and focus instead on the celebration and education aspects, then you're still acting toward the greater goal of social acceptance, from which all policy achievements may be attained. Yes, PRIDE is explicitly about creating a sense of community among homosexuals, but it's also an implicit rejection of the shame imposed upon them by straight society. In fact, unashamed would be, I think, a far more accurate description of what gay pride parades have always been about (i.e. "We're here. We're queer. Get used to it."). And if it's about a rejection of shame in a public forum, then it must also be about pushing forth an agenda of acceptance, along with all of the policy changes that come with it. In short, it's primary agenda is, and always has been a change in the way homosexuals are viewed and respected in society. It's not like the Columbus Day Parade, or the St. Patrick's Day Parade, or the Puerto Rican Day Parade. It's specifically about putting forth a political agenda weighted toward a particular scope of civil rights.
I don't think you're understanding. Without policy, there are no civil rights marches. The same simply isn't true of a "parade." It's not just a piece of the argument, it is the argument. If there's no segregation, there's no march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge. Can we say the same of gay marriage? Can we say the same of gay adoption?
For what it's worth, this is my last word here. I just re-read your posts above, and realized I should have bowed out when I saw this:
This is the kind of double-speak, and hair-splitting that would lead someone to believe that you're arguing for the sport of it, for the right to not be wrong. I don't know that, but I believe it. I'd rather not engage.
Coates,
You obviously are welcome to your own interpretation, and you're in no way obligated to respond as you've said your piece. For the record though, as to the "hair-splitting," my initial post read like this:
"I don’t know. I think the world needs its pragmatists at least as much as it needs revolutionary idealists."
Basically, all I was saying is that I think you're being generally unfair to the perspective that a little pragmatism was in order. I think you read it a bit too harshly, and read it to be about placating or appeasing bigots when I read it to be more a call for pragmatism. Note, however, that I said the world also needs "revolutionary idealists" which was to say that every issue of civil rights needs somebody willing to put the advice of the pragmatists aside. I just think you do a disservice to pragmatism and to a cause by what I took as you dismissing even the consideration of consequence of image and tone or the need for practical strategy as being nothing more than placating the sensibilities of bigots.
Now I've said my piece. I do appreciate you discussing the matter.
Apparently the theme for this year's parade is "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union."
Can we go back to "Queeriffic?" next year? Sheesh.
@Patrick
For a rights movement to be successful, I think it needs to do two things:
1. Placate the opposition
2. Push the opposition
Placating bigots and idiots gets you legal acceptance. Exposing their bigotry, making them uncomfortable, and FORCING them to get used to your existence, is the thing that eventually gets social acceptance.
It makes absolutely no sense to push society to accept a thing that is half-assed or not real. Which is why we need Joe Solmonese in his suit, we need out, proud lesbian moms on the PTA, and we need drag queens in bondage gear, dancing down main street. The purpose of visibility is to say, "This is the whole community, and guess what? ALL OF IT is harmless. Pull your head out."
The parades have a place, too.
Also, "Me, too, TNC." It's beyond ridiculous that folks not only have to put up with ignorance and oppression, we have babysit the sensibilities of our oppressors, as though anything about their beliefs or feelings was justifiable, reasonable or worthy of respect.
...not that I have any strong feelings on the subject, or anything.
Being impeccably attired in a suit lets a man get away with doing almost anything. That is one reason why Stephen Colbert gets away with saying some of the most jaw-dropping statements I have ever heard-- he looks impeccable. No one would let him get away with those things if he was wearing a ratty t-shirt.
King wore those suits because 1) that was the way educated people dressed at the time, and 2) it made his captors look overbearing when they beat him up and arrested him.
Having said that, gay people should dress however they want when they march. I think today it would look sort of weird to march in a suit. Even my dad, a 62 year old banker, doesn't wear a suit everyday. Why would you wear a suit to a march these days? It's no longer 1962.
I also don;t like to be at protests, and even parades make me uncomfortable.
I guess it all depends on whether you're more interested in moral rectitude or political change. I think we all know that politics are about compromise and sometimes compromise may mean throwing on a suit. It ain't fair and nothing is guaranteed, but it's sure worth a try.
The Gay Pride parade is not a protest--it's point isn't to affect political change. Why hold it to that standard?
Because The Gays are weird and strange and it's important to point that out at every opportunity.
I guess that's a fair point. Sometimes life is marches and sometimes it's parades. I guess it's just bad timing - right about now would be a good time for a march.
The use of "tipping point," to me, seems dumb. There may be setbacks, but alas, "the arch of the universe bends toward justice." Certainly in this country, that seems to be true.
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this Coates. I think Jefferson is just keeping it 100. Whether we like it or not, whether we approve of it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the people who are against gay rights and gay marriage have in the past and will continue in the future to use the caricatures of people in gay pride marches against them when it comes to policy fight. We all want to say that people should just have a live and let live mentality, but they don't. Many people believe a gay lifestyle is immoral. Again thats a fact whether we like it or not. Some of those people could probably be convinced that what other grown folks do in their bedrooms isn't their business. But perception is many times spun into reality for people. There was a method to what Dr King and the rest of the people in the Civil Rights movement did and a part of that was about projecting a non threatening image for black folks at a time when white racists wanted to paint them as dangerous and ignorant.
That's another one of those things that kind of bothers me about the constant effort to compare the Civil Rights movement with the Gay Rights movement. Does anyone really believe that Dr King wanted to march mile after mile in a hot ass suit all the time? Of course he didn't. But he did what needed to be done to get shit done. Now even to mention that maybe the image that is being projected at a gay pride march is unhelpful to the Gay Rights movement is seen as some kind of attack on gay people. No, I believe its just about facing reality. When you want change sometimes you have to subjugate yourself and your wishes and your individuality in order to affect that change. Did Dr King have to do things to make racists feel more comfortable with him and the rest of the black folks in this country in order to get the Civil Rights Act passed?
I don't think there is any question that he did. If the Gay Rights movement wants to continue to be compared to the Civil Rights movement maybe they should keep that in mind.
You've yet to deal with central critique--A parade isn't the same as a protest. Martin Luther King was not marching in a parade--he was protesting something. A gay rights parade isn't a protest. It's primary goal isn't to affect policy change. King very clearly was. It's Gay Pride Parade. Not a Gay Rights March.
First of all I reject the premise that a gay pride march isn't about affecting policy change. If it isn't about project the fact that there are many of gay people among us who won't be silent then what is it about? Are you seriously saying that a gay pride march is just about having fun? Are you seriously saying that nothing about these parades or the people organizing them is about changing the policies against them?
If so I vehemently disagree.
But beyond that whether the marches Dr King participated in were for policy or not is besides the point and here is why. Parallel to King of course was the NOI movement and their marches. Marches which while they were for the most part engaged in also by black men in suits were meant to project an aura of strength and potential violence. But in the end did King bury his head in the sand and act as if what Malcolm and the rest of the NOI was doing wasn't going to have an effect on what he was trying to do? Or did he speak out and say that what they were doing was counter productive?
By the way, have you actually read up on the history of the Gay Pride March?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_parade
Still want to try to draw a distinction?
Sg,
Did you read the following paragraph in that wiki article. It clearly says that in more accepting cities the activities are more festive character. It also says that many parades still have at least SOME of the political activist characters in less accepting cities. Surely you can recognize there is a distinct difference between parades and marches. Here is a big one with the Gay Pride Parade, if gay rights were fully realized, the Gay Pride Parade would still exist and it would still be called the Gay Pride Parade. It is not the same as the march on Selma, or to the many marches that are going on in Iran right now.
You damn right, I do.
The march across the Edmund Pettis Bridge was launced, solely, for the political purpose of fighting segregation. There would have been no march without it. James Meredith marched to protest segregation at the University of Mississippi. Had there been no segregation he wouldn't have marched. When Martin Luther King marched in Memphis, it was to get a better deal for the sanitation workers. There would have been no march without that aim. Each of these civil rights era marches had very specific policy goals--they would not have existed without them. The primary (if not sole) goal was to change policy.
You may argue that some people marching in Gay Pride Parade may also be pushing a set of issues. But the primary goal isn't to affect policy. If gay marriage is legalized in the entire country, I suspect that gay pride marches won't disappear.
A protest--specifically the CRM-era protests--take as their primary goal a policy change. If there is no Iraq War, there is no Iraq War protest march. If there is no Vietnam War, there is no Vietnam War protest march. A protest primary goal is usually a policy change. A parade's primary goal isn't. Noting that the parade has political orgins, doesn't change this essential fact.
keith
Of course I read the next paragraph. Hell I read the whole article. But as I said before you can't possibly believe that this is all about having fun and not about policy. I don't know if you realize this or not but people have marches/parades all over this country during black history month STILL to commemorate the Civil Rights movement. Whether there are still gay pride parades or marches or not its pretty hard to make the statement that it has nothing to do with policy when the thing grew out of protests from glbt people being targeted.
Moreover, I await your response to this very specific point:
And
Emphasis on the word primary. Pointing out that there are political elements to Gay Pride March, doesn't mean, as you insinuate, that there is no distinction. I need to see evidence that the primary goal of a Gay Pride Parade--as opposed to a Gay Rights March (they have those), an anti-Prop Eight March (we've seen those), a Pro-Gay Marriage March (we've seen those)--is to change public policy.
I would also like to point out something that TNC said down thread in a response that is a very smart observation. It would seem that the Gay Pride Parade is an oppurtunity to celebrate homosexuality in all its many forms. Like TNC said, straight people don't have to hide their sexual lives, and in terms of civil rights - there was no closet for African Americans to hide in. Their color was out there, much much different than hiding you are as a sexual being. Sure their are elemnts of protest and activism whithin the parades, but it has seem to me that the overiding purpose of the parade was to say "This is who we are, we are not ashamed".
sg, please re-read that first bit:
The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar which catered to an assortment of patrons, but which was popular with the most marginalized people in the gay community: transvestites, transgender people, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth.
Prior to Stonewall, the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis had held marches that were much more sober and dignified, where marchers were instructed to wear gender-appropriate clothes and refrain from public displays of affection.
But the birth of the modern gay rights movement is generally considered to be when a bunch of drag queens and stone butch dykes and hustlers decided they'd fucking had enough and they weren't going to take shit from the cops anymore, and they stood up and rioted. Telling queers that we should pretend that we're all just like everyone else not only reinforces the idea that if you're not like everyone else you don't deserve rights, but it erases the history of some of the very people who got us to this point.
Darkrose,
I think your point is generally well taken. That being said, I don’t think anybody is necessarily saying that anybody should be just like everyone else. I think the argument is more succinctly placed with the understanding that if there is a desire for acceptance and recognition, then one should at least consider how certain public exhibitionism could (and really is) counterproductive to that cause. From where I stand, while the situation may be unfair, the argument that this is the situation is perfectly reasonable. The question becomes what to do given that this is the situation. Do you say “Fuck That and Fuck Those People”? Or do you, as Jefferson suggests, consider the potential impact, even consequence, of acting ostentatiously and maybe tone it down a bit with an eye to the long game? It’s a question of principles, really. In the end, it’s about which principle is more important to you when the time comes.
Well...what is the residue from that choice of conformity? There is this idea of a Black culture that is outside of the box, and why can't they just "straighten up" and talk normally or dress normally or why do they have to listen to that rap music or Hip Hop?
I have respect for MLK and what he accomplished, but it's different than what the Pride Parade is trying to accomplish. Pride is about showing an acceptance and love for yourself or your family or friends, regardless of what other people think of you. How can you say, "I accept you for who you are and what you stand for, but you need to put a suit on. And while your at it, do you have to wave your arms around so much when you talk? And can we please go to the Strip Club when we are in Vegas and not the Cher concert?" (I'm trying to make a joke here)
The point is, you are ok being who you are, despite what you may have been told. And it's ok that you want to ride your bike topless with your girlfriend in the front of the parade. And it's ok that you wear a sweater and jeans as you march with your church. And if you want to wear a g-string--cool. Any way, I think the more "extreme" images that are from San Francisco is reserved for specialized street fairs (like Folsom St. Fair). You don't see too much "extreme" images from the San Francisco Pride parade, at least not in this day and age.
I think maybe some people are confused about the point of Gay Pride Parades. It's about being proud to be gay. Period. Hence Gay Pride. It's like the St Patrick's Day parade, the Puerto Rican Day parade, the Israel Day parade. It's about being proud of who you are, no matter who you are, on a day that's just for you.
It's NOT a Gay Rights parade.
There are Gay Rights protests. There were No on Prop 8 protests, and there are Legalize Gay Marriage rallies, and the like. And I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone wearing a thong at one of those. They may not wear suits (MLK wore a suit because everybody wore a suit; look it up), but they're not wearing Naughty Nun outfits either.
If people can't separate the exuberance of Gay Pride parades from the seriousness of Gay Rights protests, that is not the problem of the gay community. That is the problem of people lacking perspective.
I see NYC turn into a green-vomit strewn nightmare every St Patrick's Day, but it doesn't make me want to deprive Irish-Americans of fundamental civil rights.
Fer chrissake.
EXACTLY what I wanted to say Karen. It's a parade NOT a protest for pete's sake. Go to the St. Patty's Day parade, the Puerto Rican Day parade, et cetera and people are dressed in any number of outlandish outfits. Why? Because they are celebrating pride, not making a political statement.
In general I'm always weary of the argument that groups should do a tapdance and put on a "safe" face just so people who are going to hate them anyway should be "comfortable" with them. Why should I not enjoy watermelon in public every so often just because someone might see it and immediately reduce me to a stereotype? Maybe that isn't a good analogy, but the point is that the time for groups of people to stop paying attention to what makes them "acceptable" to outsiders and just do them.
Why should people at a parade wear suits and "conservative" dress just to make some homophobes who hate them and who they are comfortable. Yeesh, the whole thing just sounds ridiculous.
Har! Nice one.
a. What Karen said.
b. Just as we often questioned the logic of comparative oppressions in this space during the election season, I think we should be skeptical about this analogy between forms of protest. Some good points have already been raised (e.g. it ain't 1962), so I'll just add this one: pride marches are about visibility as much as anything, and this is one front where the gay & lesbian community just plain differs from blacks, women, & many other oppressed groups claiming their rights. And I think the carnival atmosphere at a lot of gay pride parades comes in part from a need or desire to assert and demonstrate one's presence - and, for many at least, one's difference.
c. Freedom to "behave yourself" or be "just like everyone else" isn't any kind of freedom.
What does that mean to you? "Proud to be gay. Period." Alas, I am always a bit confused by this idea that people can express pride over an attribute for which they had not control. It's like: I'm proud to be right-handed! It's like proud to be an American. I'm not proud to be an American. I am happy that I am an American.
I mean, why be proud to be gay? To be honest, my take has always been that it just sounded better than saying something like "I'm unashamed that I am gay." Which I think it's all really about, rejecting the societal stigma attached to being homosexual. Of course, that's a political statement within itself.
Comparing the Pride Parades (or Marches, as they call them in NYC--and, I'm sure, elsewhere) to the St. Patrick's Day parades is sort of silly. Afterall, even if we accept the dubious premise that the festivities on March 17 are primarily about Irish pride, you still overlook the very obvious point that there's no social stigma associated with being Irish, so there's no political statement to be made in expressing a lack of shame or even pride at having Irish heritage.
Of course, it's probably important to point out that just about every parade organizer likely includes very explicit language rebuking your claim that it is about nothing more than the expression of pride. SF Pride's mission statement says the organization "is dedicated to education, to the commemoration of LGBT heritage and to the celebration of LGBT culture and liberation." Now, if we accept that all of these commitments fall within under the general scope of "Pride" then it's sort of difficult to separate an event intended for public consumption from an inherently political event. Want proof? Look to the number of straight politicians invited and in attendance at every pride parade across the country.
Of course, all of this walks a bit away from the original point that to publically express pride in being gay is, itself, a political statement. The question is whether or not there exists an intended goal with what is unquestionably a political event. I think there is a goal. I think it's a general goal having more to do with societal acceptance than it does specific policy change, but that doesn't make the goal any less real.
Now, having established that it's a fairly political event complete with genuine political goals, there's the other question about how one behaves at an event to best acheive those goals. Jefferson argues for pragmatism, saying, in effect, that these parades and marches are about rejecting societal stigmitization and about demanding recognition and acceptance and that certain behaviors at these events run counterproductive to those goals. That's a fair point, I think. TNC, who is choosing not to be a pragmatist in this case, not only rejects the political nature of the event, he essentially calls Jefferson an appeaser of bigots (a perspective with which you seem to agree). I'm not sure that's a fair point, but I understand the need for people to reject the call for pragmatism when they believe the principle outweighs the foreseeable consequence of acting without a certain level deference or discretion.
publically? Sigh.
One last thing on pride vs. lack of shame, as I know that it can be the sort of distinction that may cause people to take some offense. My point is not that the pride is false, just slightly misplaced. One should feel pride not about being gay, but in being out, open, honest, and unashamed.
I have to agree with TNC. It seems you are only arguing for the sake of argument. Your defining of parade and policy and who is and isn't stigmatized is only convenient for your point and not the shared cultural ideas. The Irish have been stigmatized a great deal. You can make any action about a "policy" dispute in some ways if you do enough back flips. I have not doubt there will be gay pride parades as long as there are Puerto Rican Day parades. They will not stop once the policy goals of the gay movement are met.
Yes, the Irish HAVE been stigmatized. Another way to say this is that they were once stigmatized. Today, for most people in the United States, the Irish are white people. There are old stereotypes about drinking, but the days of the Irish being looked at as white trash (there are far more offensive variations of that) have long since disappeared from the collective consciousness. So, even in accepting the premise that St. Patrick's Day is about Irish pride (which it undoubtedly is for some participants), the loss of the stigmatization of the Irish as an ethnic group removes the inherent political statement of expressing pride in being Irish. I wonder whether you'd consider a St. Patrick's Day Parade in late 19th century New York to be a simple celebration of Irish Pride.
To be clear, I haven't defined "parade" or "policy." I have said that it's inaccurate to say that this particular parade is not as much a political statement as it is a simple celebration. I said that the nature of the celebration makes every aspect of the celebration itself political. I've yet to see anybody refute that simple point.
As to whether or not the Gay Pride Parade will go away once gay friendly policies are adopted: I haven't made that argument. I would say that the adoption of gay friendly policies (and the loss of social stigma) will likely lessen the importance of the Pride Parade. With time, the whole thing will become much more like St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day: well attended, but generally irrelevant from a socio-political perpective. Why isn't that obvious?
On arguing for argument's sake: I'm not sure why people get this impression. I think the more accurate interpretation would be that what I'm doing is focusing on what I perceive to be the fundamental weaknesses of the prevailing view in the hope that people may feel the need to slightly tweek their perspective.
What TNC did was bypass any merits to the argument Jefferson was making by saying that the argument shouldn't be made in the context of the parade (which I consider to be a bit of a flimsy argument). Now, from my first post, I've remained generally agnostic about whether or not people should heed Jefferson's warnings. Why? Because, I'm not gay, I'm not marching in the parade, and I have no moral objections to how the more ostentatious behavior and dress of the parades. In short, the question of what people do or how they SHOULD act or dress at the parade doesn't really concern me. I'm far more interested in the philosophical forces at play in Jefferson's argument (i.e. pragmatism vs. idealism), and I felt the simple practicality of what Jefferson was saying was being almost completely ignored. All I've been saying from the beginning is that he was making a practical argument. I completely concede good, even better, arguments opposing what Jefferson is saying, but all of those arguments recognize his logic, which none of the arguments here seem to be doing.
I'm sorry this went on for so long.
I think pragmatism is a term that has been divorced from its denotation over time.
I think saying that Gay Pride marchers aren't intent on "getting things done" is a false choice.
The point I think TNC and others are making is that the thing Gay Pride prades are trying to "get done is" dignity. Or self-respect.
Dignity comes from within.
What some are saying is that these parades work against reputation with is defined by the wider community and which is key to poltical changes.
Gay Pride is a social movement of self-determination and self-determination for a marginalized group is always going to conflict with reputation.
Those engaged in poltical struggle have an incentive to minimize this dissonance those who engage in social or philosophical struggle do not.
MLK was only respectable to those who didn't oppose his cause in his lifetime.
Everyone else hated him openly until he was dead (when they began to hate him quietly).
What Karen said!!
The end result of believing that the medium is the message seems to be that people will only listen to people if they have the right credentials. The poor boy in me always hated the fact that someone in overalls isn't listened to at the same level as someone in a suit. It's not that I don't see some sort of merit in the sentiment that "if someone wants to be taken seriously they have to wear a suit." I do, but the sentiment is elitist. The statement itself doesn't bother me, but the implication that only people with "credentials" have something worth saying is troublesome.
It's all about context. The guy in sequins at the Pride Parade is not - usually - showing up to a job interview or his niece's wedding dressed that way.
Have to disagree. This isn't about context. It's about refusing to listen to someone because they don't look "respectable."
It shouldn't matter how a person is dressed, where they went to school, how much money a person makes, or how many teeth they have. In any context. Objectively a human being is still a human being and deserving of respect.
Malcom X had a joke about what white racists call a black man with a PH.D. The same joke applies here. To a certain segment of the population a gay man in a suit is still a ______.
The point behind what I said isn't that we should make exceptions for parades, but that we need to start treating people as individuals deserving of our respect regardless of anything that we might find offensive about them. Until then I don't think it's going to matter how people dress.
You know, even if it was a gay rights march, I still would want to acknowledge my roots. The Stonewall riots were theier own event in history, an the roots of the gay liberation movement *were* people who celebrated their sexuality because that's what people hated in them. People hate LGBT people because of who we f*ck. We can go celibate or marry someone we'll never truly love and vanish into the deepest closet.
In stead, we are still to this day fighting for the right to not be judged by who we f*ck. Sex is an inherent part of how society judges us, so being out about it is a radical act. If society didn't force us to be radical just by what we do in privacy, we'd never have to take one single day out of the year to show the world what it is they're judging. If people keep hurting us for what we do in private, we will reclaim our lives from fear of them in public.
While there's overlap in both being victims of oppression, GLBT people are in charge of our own struggle, and we've decided to be who we are, unafraid. Pride is the enemy of shame. Cord Jefferson wants us to give in to shame and fear.
No.
Its not about that. Its about reality. You can control you you f*ck a hell of a lot more than a black person can control their skin color and yet when someone points out what black folks had to do in order to effect change some people just dismiss it as some how being an affront to gay people being allowed to be themselves. Well I am calling bullshit on that. I like wearing wife beaters and flip flops around the house, but I can't wear that shit to a job interview. Even if the job isn't one that requires me to dress up. That's reality. You have a right not to take Jefferson's advice true enough. But just understand that when black folks had to fight for civil rights they actually had to FIGHT. They had to do shit they didn't want to do. They had to give up shit they didn't want to give up. It is rare that the powers that be change anything without someone making those kinds of sacrifice. So it is what it is.
I never knew that being GLBT meant you had to dress outlandish anyway. The same way that being black doesn't mean you have to wear your pants sagging off your ass with some timberlands on your feet.
Those are choices.
You can control you you f*ck a hell of a lot more than a black person can control their skin color
Do you really want to make this argument? Do we really have to pull out the 'who suffers more' yardstick? What about black gay people, are they only half-oppressed because they can't change their skin color? Jesus.
If we use this line of arguement then I would have to say that I am triply oppressed: black, gay and a woman. Top that.
Which is easiest to change, Storm? ::eyeroll::
Once had an amazing professor in college. Black, Lesbian, mother. She used to call herself the tripple threat. Facing discrimination on all fronts. The yard stick is so tired. No one gets to pull the my battle was harder than yours victim complex.
Once a year, some (not all) queer folk dress up funny, have a party, and remember that, 40 years ago (this year) the leaders of our movement had thier heads beaten in for dressing up funny in private.
These days, we stand up for the memory of those people by doing it for ONE SINGLE DAY in public. Then we go back to our day jobs, and wear suits. In fact, we design the damn suits and dresses the rest of you all wear.
Being queer doesn't mean dressing "outlandishly" in public, but if we're remembering a day when we had fag bashing police beat us to death because of the way we dressed in private you can bet we'll dress how we want on that one day.
And don't ever tell us we didn't have to fight for our rights. You have no clue what you're talking about.
TNC, I agree with your distinction - a parade is not a march, pure and simple. What this discussion is making me think more about is the wider comparison between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, which I think are only loosely congruous. As soon as Jefferson made Dr. King the center of his analogy, I sort of dismissed the comparison, though I understood his point. My impression of the gay rights movement is that it is alot more amorphous and ill-defined than the civil rights movement was. we make the comparison b/c its the closest thing we have; that doesn't mean its really that accurate.
And off of that, it makes me wonder if - to your earlier post about the gay rights movement not needing an MLK-like leader (which I agree with) - part of the gay movement's problem is that it can't/hasn't yet solidified itself in a focused, disciplined way (but now I'm contrasting it again, with my impression of the civil rights movement).
TNC,
I'm a fan, and I'm glad you're continuing a discussion I was eager to start.
Your argument--that a parade isn't the same as a protest, and thus shouldn't be held to the same standards--is one of the most cogent and common responses to my main point, which is why I included it in the article. I also responded to it there:
"Fowlkes' final sentiment reminds me of something my father used to tell me over and over as a child. Sitting me down to my homework or to read a thick book, he'd say sternly, 'As a person of color in America, sometimes you're going to have to do two for a white person's one. That's not fair, but that's life.'
...Maybe, just once, the LGBT community should try abandoning the scant costumes and embellished sexuality and 'do two.' They could march down the center of America's great cities in all the clothes they regularly wear, exposing themselves for what they truly are: normal human beings. It wouldn't be as fun as past parades, and it's not fair. But for now, that's life."
I submit that thinking it politically wise to tone down the pride parades isn't telling the oppressed that they are "responsible for the venal stupidity of their oppressors." I'd call it being a realist and facing the fact that there are people who use the images that come out of pride parades as evidence supporting their hatred. Does admitting this make me a bigot? I don't think so.
I don't actually agree with you, Cord, but I don't think this makes you a bigot.
Gay people have argued about this for years -- for one, I'm fairly certain that I remember Andrew Sullivan making the same argument.
" I'd call it being a realist and facing the fact that there are people who use the images that come out of pride parades as evidence supporting their hatred.
They don't need Pride for this. They'll make up any old garbage. Our existence is an affront to them.
Pride is not about straight people. As an audience, as participants, as anything. It's not about you.
MAJeff makes two points:
They don't need Pride for this. They'll make up any old garbage. Our existence is an affront to them.
Maybe some, but definitely not all. There are plenty of fence-sitters and older folks who simply haven't been around to many (out) gay folks. They're the type you can really convince with a "normal" appearance.
Pride is not about straight people. As an audience, as participants, as anything. It's not about you.
This is the important point, and the one TNC keeps making. Pride is their time to do their thing. The Friendly are welcome to stand by and enjoy, but this ain't the day to bring the fence-sitters around.
Good of you to come over. (I'm not being sarcastic.) But again, as I said up thread, I don't know how you ask people who are not protesting, who are not attempting to affect a social policy, to act like they are.
There's something else too--We don't have a closet. We don't have to do the same work of acceptance that gays have to. I suspect that a "pride parade" means something different to them, something that we aren't really seeing, because we don't have to worry about hiding our sex lives.
Lastly, I'm very interested in what percentage of people in most Gay Pride parades actually get into costume.
Lastly, I'm very interested in what percentage of people in most Gay Pride parades actually get into costume.
Very few.
I've only been to Boston's recently. Some of the costumes:
Clerical robes --worn by actual clergy.
Hockey uniforms--gay hockey team
"Traditional" ethnic clothing--Latino and South Asian LGBT groups (some cross-dressing; often of a Carnival theme)
Swimsuits--the swimming club.
Country wear--the line dancers.
Mostly--people in shorts/jeans and t-shirts
Hmmm....I go to the NYC gay pride parade regularly (every other year; they do become exhausting after awhle though) and these are some of the costumes I see freqeuntly:
--men dressed up as bikers, wearing cool, black leather jackets, thongs and motorcycle boots.
--many, many drag queens in feather boa's, heavy make-up, evening dresses, etc.
--topless chicks on bikes
--gay public servants also march -- see you will see the uniforms of police and fire fighters.
My point is, at the NYC parades, there will be many, many different forms of self-expression, ranging from the flamboyant (the men in thongs, etc.) to the typical (jeans and t-shirts, as mentioned above.)
When you see the media coverage, you will, of course, often only see the most flamboyant images because it makes good tv.
What I am about to say will probably not be PC, or taken kindly by other gay commenters on the blog, but, as a gay person, I (and my gay friends) have often wished that our Pride celebrations -- the annual parades, etc. -- did have more of a political and social agenda, and less of a celebration/party agenda. I know -- and understand -- that the Parade has traditionally been about celebrating --and affirming -- our pride in being gay, about our right to be here. But, I think, these annual parades could also be used more effectively to adovocate for policy changes. And to do this we don't have to change the way we dress, but instead change the focus/mission of the marches to one of a more serious poltical nature.
I don't know, perhaps it is just that I am getting older and the partying is just not meaningful enough for me anymore.
It seems to me that we are not maximizing on the opportunity to take advantage of the thousands of gay people that attend these parades.
I wonder, what power could the gay movement unleash if all of these people came together to affect politcal change instead of just to attend a parade and party?
I live in San Francisco of all places, and there are a lot of "boring, normal" looking people in the parade. Last time I went there was a whole contingent of gay parents pushing strollers for God's sake. Ooooh - scary!
P.S. I would be interested in what percentage of people who are uncomfortable with the pride parades and think that they should be modified have ever actually BEEN to a pride parade in person, and not just seen the photos/video from one. Of course the photos/video are going to be of the most outrageous people there.
Cord,
I don't agree with you at all, but I'm glad you dropped by. I think one of the places where LGBT rights and black/PoC rights part ways is the invisible nature of homosexuality, compared to skin color (it's addressed elsewhere in the comments). Most LGBT people do march down the center of our great cities, just being who they are, 364 or so days of the year (let's not get into what's 'normal' right now!). But their 'gay-ness' is invisible for that very reason.
I've had people tell me to my face they didn't know gay people, or didn't care to know gay people, when they had gay family members and gay community members. They didn't want to see them. They wanted to pretend they didn't exist. Pride parades are an aggressive response to gay invisibility: We're here, we're queer, get used to it. They were (and are) a specific response to a specific challenge. (People of color have issues of invisibility as well, but they're different challenges, I think.)
And I think I'm more cynical than you are: I don't think stopping the supply of those images will ever make the complaints stop.
Aren't gay pride parades more analogous to Mardi Gras celebrations than to civil rights marches? It's a day off from politics -- a day to let your freak-flag fly.
Now, does anyone look at Mardi Gras and say, "clearly none of these people should be taken seriously. See how eager they are to get drunk and naked?"
I understand what people are saying about gays presenting a respectable face -- but there are countless opportunities for that, year 'round. Why can't these people have a little fun? And, yeah, maybe scandalize some old ladies in the process?
Thanks for making that Mardi Gras comparison - exactly what I was thinking.
I have to agree with sgwhite.
I spent a number of years back in the 90's doing things that required varying degrees of public speaking such as corporate training, meeting and workshop facilitation, and giving presentations. If you want to be effective when you speak to a group of people, you quickly learn that your appearance must be perceived as positive/neutral and should not distract from what you are trying to communicate. In a business environment, that means conservative dress. For a woman, that means simple, stylish clothing, simple jewelry, perfect fit, not too short, not too tight, no breasts showing, and low heels. When you step up to speak before a group, people will study your appearance for roughly 30 seconds. That is how long it takes to make the first impression. The goal is to achieve a positive first impression of your appearance but also to have your appearance become a non issue as soon as you begin speaking.
I think the point is that if you have something to say and you want to be taken seriously, you might have to accomodate the very human tendency to form an opinion based on a perceived negative or inappropriate physical appearance. This is reality.
As for parade versus march, I'm not sure that the general public differentiates, but I can see where a Gay Pride Parade would be kind of boring if everyone was wearing Eddie Bauer, Dockers, and Lands End.
You're absolutely right. And, I believe, when gay people are making public presentations in business environments, they are likely to follow your lead.
But that's not what Gay Pride Day is about.
If the Gay Haters are saying "screw the Gays" - and they are, and the Gays should, as some suggest, say "screw the Gay Haters" then everyone is getting screwed. Each side becomes more offended and hardassed toward the other side.
I think, this is where some empathy for others points of view should come into play.
If the Gays would be the bigger Men (and women and trans, and everyone else) and say "I empathize with your concern and understand your nervousness" first, they could, perhaps, diffuse some of the haters nastiness that is being heard by those who are "on the fence" so to speak.
In any event, we're never going to change the Haters view, but we might be able to shift the view of a larger percentage of those who are not on either fringe faster if we address them in a more respectable way.
My argument isn't, as Mr. Coates accuses me of, "is that Gay Haters' real problem with gays boils down to some dudes in San Fran who, on one day, out of the year decide to play dress-up". My argument is, like I said, "let's quit giving them such an easy target".
If the argument is "Gays and Lesbians are just like you and me" then giving the Haters visual ammunition to say "Oh no they ain't" is self-defeating.
I'm done.
If the Gays would be the bigger Men (and women and trans, and everyone else) and say "I empathize with your concern and understand your nervousness" first, they could, perhaps, diffuse some of the haters nastiness that is being heard by those who are "on the fence" so to speak.
We do it every day. In the workplace. In the PTA. In our own families.
One weekend a year to celebrate, though, to let down our hair and not have the sensibilities of anti-gay straight people prominent in our minds is too much to ask.
Well, as the haters have been telling me since, oh, I was about six, I'm not like them. I've always been too thin, too emotive (or alternately too shy), not sporty enough, too sporty, too fashionable, not fashionable in the right way, my voice too high then too deep, or inflected the wrong way, or I listen to the wrong music, or actually listen to music, or dare to play music, my hair has been too long and too short. No matter what happens, I'm pegged as a fucking faggot.
I'm a faggot when I put on a button-down shirt. I'm a faggot in jeans and a plain t-shirt. I'm a faggot in a suit. Now I'm certainly not about to go out wearing a thong, but I'm getting rather sick and tired of being told I have a political responsibility to not look like a faggot when straights seem to seek out excuses to call me out as one.
The funny thing about suits is that they were originally a kind of leveling. They're middle class, not aristocratic, and even working class people would make a point of getting one for formal occasions. And you judge people in suits by the fact they put them on at all. The fact that one guy owns 20 of the things, while another owns just the one he uses for weddings and funerals, doesn't enter into it.
That is, if you live in a climate where people are going to wear all those layers of wool anyway, whether in the form of a suit or something else. The problem comes when you import it into the American south in summertime.
As for the parades, I like flamboyance. Sequins, absolutely. Drag, go for it. But please, please, please keep it all fun and rated PG. A lot of people do want to bring their kids, and that's a positive trend.
A lot of people do want to bring their kids, and that's a positive trend.
Hell, half the groups marching are pushing kids in strollers.
Wait, though. It doesn't really matter whether it is a "parade" or a "march." It is a celebration of LGBT people/culture. If there was a similar "parade" for African-American culture, I assume Jefferson would still make the same claim (people should present themselves in a way that doesn't make others uncomfortable if there is a current debate regarding their rights). I still think his analogy is wrong, but disagree with others here that LGBT people shouldn't be aware of how images from pride parades will appear to voting homophobes.
I think the crucial distinction rests on the difference between gays/blacks when it comes to civil rights. I know it has been addressed here before, but there is a difference between the "basis" for discrimination against black and the "basis" for discrimination against gays. Blacks are discriminated against because of innate physical/physiological charateristics; gays are discriminated against because of behavior.
And this is true regardless of whether homosexuality is a "choice" or not (I am firmly in the "not" camp). A gay man who never has a relationship with another man, and who gets married to a woman and goes to church and has two kids and a house in the suburbs is still gay, but nobody is going to discriminate against him, because he hasn't "done" anything gay. In the mind of a homophobe, for all intents and purposes, he is straight. Same goes for a homosexual person who expresses a desire to "change" - homophobes love those people, because they aren't doing "homosexual things". A black person who never wears his pants hanging off his ass or expresses a wish to be white, is still black, and racists will still hate him for it.
So gays *should* arguably be more concerned about "behavior" and "appearances" than blacks, because behavior is the defining characteristic for those that, as we all know, have a great deal of power over the success/failure of the gay rights cause. And even though there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with men in thongs and sequins, that doesn't mean that this shouldn't be considered.
Personally, I don't take "pride" in things that I had no hand in shaping. What sense does it make to take pride in being Irish, Gay, or Black when you had nothing to do with being born that way. Of course, this is a pragmatic argument and has nothing whatsoever to do with the politics of having a Gay Pride parade. Yes, it isn't a march, but there is definitely a political point to be made.
And speaking as someone who was in marching band from 7th grade through college, I hate parades. I hate the heat, I hate the walking for miles on hard pavement, I hate the lack of bathrooms and I especially hate the horses and clowns (and for pretty much the same reasons).
What sense does it make to take pride in being Irish, Gay, or Black when you had nothing to do with being born that way.
In each of these cases, they are celebrating their culture, which people most definitely play a role in shaping.
Culture is far from a monolithic thing and most certainly can't be captured by walking down a street. And to me, the underlying current of all of these events is: "This is something I am that you aren't" and I just don't buy into that as a good thing.
Why read it as "this is something I am that you aren't"? Meaning, why do you read it as an act of exclusion? My sense of these things - and I've been on both sides of this, as an insider and an outsider, depending on exactly which culture is being celebrated - is that that's not what's going on.
It's not about you - the outsider - at all. The whole point of these things is that when you're part of some marginalized group, you spend so long getting defined in terms of what everyone else is, and what everyone else thinks of you, that the point of these festivals is to simply be yourself. That's all. That's it. I know it's hard to really believe that, say, queer people (or some other marginalized/stigmatized group) don't feel like they can be themselves in day to day life, but please trust me when I say there's something to it.
I'm searching for a nice way to say this, because my point isn't to hector you or call you names. So this is the best way I know to put it, and I apologize for any harshness: it's arrogant to look at a cultural festival and say "it's about exclusion because people are affirming that they're something I'm not". It's arrogant because the festival really, honestly isn't about you. That's the whole point. And to make the complaint you're making, you're assuming that it does have something to do with you, and in the context of a discussion, you're changing the subject to make it about you and your exclusion. I'm not saying this is your intention. I'm saying that this is what flows from thinking that the meaning of these events is "this is something I am that you are not".
"I especially hate the horses and clowns (and for pretty much the same reasons)."
Horses give you nightmares and clown shit gets all over your shoes?
What sense does it make to take pride in being Irish, Gay, or Black when you had nothing to do with being born that way.
Because it's not how we were born that's the issue, it's how we live our lies. Gay is not just being born gay just like being black is not just like being born black - there's a cultural experience that's unique to each.
If being born gay didn't mean anything to the rest of the world, we'd never have had the Stonewall riots to begin with.
I get that this doesn't make sense to you, but it's not senseless just because of that. It has real meaning to us, and it's important for good reasons.
If you condition equal rights to our "good" behavior you don't believe in equal rights. There is a little bit of power play on your side: Behave or I withdrawal my support! That is exactly what civil rights should be in the hands of the majority.
Rights are rights. They don't depend on how much anybody likes anybody. If I don't believe the worst of homophobes has a right to freedom of speech then I really don't believe on freedom of speech.
The suits worn by MLK were typical of the era. This was a time when men almost always wore hats outdoors. Suits, hats, and for women, gloves, were something that even manual laborers wore to go to church, or just go downtown. So it probably would have been unthinkable to the Civil Rights marchers not to dress that way.
Our era is much more casual and dress-down. Wearing suits to anything other than office work, weddings or funerals is weird--and reminds people of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.
An added thought. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing photos in which Civil Rights marchers, while wearing suits, had removed their suit jackets, loosened their ties and rolled up their sleeves. So yeah, sometimes they did think about comfort.
I actually think this is a really good point. And again, like TNC said, it's a parade. Do Irish people get flack for wearing too much green on St. Patty's?
People wear all kinds of crazy stuff to football games on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. As far as I know no one holds that stuff against anyone -- it's a big, fun public event and people are cutting loose. And everyone knows you don't show up to the City Council meeting on morning to discuss traffic on gameday in your neighborhood with half your body painted green, the other half white, and a football helmet on your head, shouting "E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLESSSSSS!"
Okay, maybe in Philly you do, but I'm talking about normal places.
The strangest parade I ever saw was in Paris in June of 2000. It consisted of about half a dozen people, dressed up like zombies, lumbering down the street. No crowd, no signs, no music. They did have a police escort -- two cops on scooters -- which was the only indication that it was a parade and not an actual zombie attack.
I have no idea what that parade was about. I've never heard of a French Zombie Parade, before or since.
I hope they were dressed responsibly so no one would think less of the zombies in their neighborhoods.
It's a geek horror subculture thing. There was a Zombie Rights March in DC, a Zombie march in Philadelphia, where I live, and I think there have been such things in other big cities around here as well.
So, the French were on the cutting edge of Zombie Rights, huh?
Evidently, it was actually the Canadians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_walk
Strange. That article dates the first documented zombie walk as being in 2003, but the zombie parade I witnessed was in 2000. As I said, there were only about six people and they carried no signs or anything.
I'm still saying the French were out front on this one. But, I'll drop it 'cause I don't want to be a thread-jacker.
Amen, baby. Amen.
Yeah, yeah let's not forget that even if we also love, they are fixed on who we f*ck.
Apologies upfront if this point has already been made to death, but I think it is necessary to make a distinction between parades and protests, even if there is some common history between the two. People who protested against Prop. 8 (at least in Philadelphia) wore everyday street clothes with nary a drag queen in sight. And yes, the gay pride parade had go-go dancers and cross-dressers, but there are also political viewpoints; the difference is in the target audience. The parade isn't intended primarily for straight folks, whereas the protests were aimed at reaching hearts and minds of a large number of people.
Building on what Karen said above, I'd add also that ethnic parades might take on a more explicitly political character if those groups (Irish, Puerto Ricans, etc.) were still feeling oppressed for who they are. For the most part, they don't, unlike gays and lesbians.
I have almost never encountered anyone who said something like "I don't mind the thongs and flamboyance, of course, but it just gives the haters too many weapons" who weren't themselves, once you pushed them a little, deeply uncomfortable with thongs, flamboyance, and queer people in general. They're usually the kind of liberal who would eat tacks before admitting they have any prejudices at all, so getting them to admit it can be unpleasant, but they, rather than the 'haters' and 'fence-sitters' they're projecting their feelings onto, are usually the ones who only accept queer people only insofar as those queer people aren't too 'different'. Just queer enough to let you feel tolerant, but not so queer as to make you feel uncomfortable.
Just something I've noticed from conversations with a lot of the people who claim that they're worried about all the flamboyance because it sends the wrong image. Usually, they're the ones who are uncomfortable, and they blame (or more accurately, project) it on some nebulous public that - they insist - just can't stand being offended.
IMO, you can see some of this in this thread.
I think what many people are missing in this discussion (and it's been the same one since I came out of the closet almost 20 years ago) is that the gay rights agenda is NOT just about securing a limited set of legal rights for those people who are "just like" straight people. It's about fostering an atmosphere of acceptance not just in regards to sexuality, but in regards to gender expression as well.
This has been critically thrown into relief over the last 18 months, as we have two court cases in California addressing the question of whether Lawrence King was so flamboyant in his sexuality and gender expression, that a bullet to the head was a reasonable response.
No, we are not, "just like" straight people. As a culture of resistance, we have a rich history of art and culture. We know that the signifiers of heterosexuality are just cultural acts. Many of us just don't conform to the norms and expectations of masculinity and femininity. The GLBT community, with its butches, femmes, queens, bears, twinks, and people across the transgender spectrum needs to be open because too many of our own die in the closet from suicide or substance abuse.
For our community, frank and open discussion of sex, when, where, what, who, why, and how, is a matter of survival. The HIV epidemic hasn't vanished in 20 years, and we still need to talk about it.
Frankly, I strongly disagree with the revisionist history being imposed here. The image of black men in suits demanding their rights was extremely threatening to people of my grandmother's generation. It doesn't matter how we dress, bigots will use it against us. They already use the stereotype of the young gay professional.
Thank you for saying this.
Really excellent point.
YES. Thank you for saying this so cogently.
Yunno, I sorta miss the days when 'countercultural' was, yunno, counter to the culture. "Moving to the middle" is not the ideal for every human, and this thread seems to assume that it's the only goal. A guy wearing a leather thong is saying "Fuck you, I'm not like you, I don't want to be like you, I'm happy being who I am." I echo Pesto's point, and raise him one Naked Bike Ride. What's the affiliation of these folks? Oh, right, hippie. I miss the hippies. They were our last best hope to get rid of ties. Stupid fucking ties. I hate ties.
I'd hold an Individuality Day Pride Parade, but I'm afraid to out myself.
Everyone would end up dressing the same anyway.
When from early childhood society beats into your brain that what you feel is wrong, immoral, sinful, and disgusting you end up believing that society is right and there is something wrong with you. So some of us do need to learn to take pride in being who we are. To tell people in pride parades that they need to pretend to be "more normal" so as not to give more ammunition to the bigots is to reinforce the lesson we learn as kids, "there is something wrong with you, hide it."
Looking back at childhood I can tell you the exact moment where I figured out I was gay, it was in the fifth grade when I decided that I need to pretend to have a crush on a girl so my friends wouldn't think I was different. It was liberating to participate in my first pride parade and celebration, to realize that I could be myself and not have to pretend to be something I wasn't. So to all my brothers and sisters out there marching in flamboyant costumes or prancing down the street naked, thank you for showing me that we are free to be who we want to be.
I can't agree with this enough. It's what I'd been trying, and failing to say in all these other comments I've left. All I'd add is this:
Whatever someone's idea of normal is, I probably fit it. I didn't go out of my way to do this, but the way I feel most comfortable acting and presenting myself is pretty much the norm in society (people rarely guess I'm gay, and sometimes, after I tell them, they don't believe it.) I guess this makes me lucky. It has certainly saved me some grief.
But I am still horrified when people say that the public face of the queer community needs to be uniformly respectable - in other words, that they start looking and acting more like me.
And I'm horrified for precisely the reason you point out: it's telling ourselves that there is, in fact, something wrong with us, and we should hide it. It's very, very hard to grow up gay and not believe that somehow there's something deeply wrong with you, and not just you, but everyone else who's gay. And to hear us repeat that message to ourselves, "be more normal", "hide or else they'll think you're a pervert", "act like them because they'll never accept the real you", I think we're doing ourselves real harm, not just politically but psychologically. Even when a passes-as-normal guy like me hears messages like that, it's hard not to feel my heart sink, because it tells me that the relative acceptance I enjoy is conditional on good behavior, and if by luck I'd turned out a little different, a little swishier, I would have to face the choice of either acting like someone I'm not, or being rejected.
That's really well put. Thank you.
That's the point of it. We're giving shame and fear the finger.
@ Persia (I could not reply to you above)
You are too funny! To answer your queston, the easiest for me to change would be my gender; I could opt to have a sex change and become a man. However, this is something I would NEVER DO; I love being a woman way too much.
I honestly did not have a choice in being black or gay -- that is the way the lord made me.
Exactly. (Glad you thought it was funny, anyway!)
So, not to knitpick, but nobody calls it San Fran.
This whole thread reminds me of the Purity Wars the GOP is fighting right now.
Mr. Coates calls Mr. Jefferson a bigot - not because Mr. Jefferson opposes equal rights - but because thinks different about tactics.
Seriously, that's fucked up.
You can wear a thong with jelly dong attached for all I care- that's your right and I support it.
But you can bet your ass that it is going to be used against you.
And just like Free Speech, just because it is in your rights to say just about anything you want, it doesn't mean you should - like calling someone a bigot because you disagree with their suggestion on how to achieve a common goal.
Where, exactly, does Coates call Jefferson a bigot?
Your concern is noted.