Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[MysticTiger]

I severely loathe Same Love. =_= There are plenty of awesome queer artists around to listen to, even if they're not allowed as much media as Crackermore. <3

 

He thought he was gay because he could draw in 3rd grade? Oh, whoo. He totally understands our issues. Did not appreciate the silencing of the actual GSM artist he had working with him during his VMA speech either.

 

Macklebore seems to view us as a way to profits. Isn't Same Love the song he pushed when Congress gave their answer on Prop 8? Yay, money.

I don't understand this mentality that you have to be Gay or you have to be Black or you have to be Muslim or you have to be whatever race/religion/sexual orientation/etc to support equality within those race/religion/sexual orientation/etc. Can you imagine if you wanted to donate to Cancer research and they said, "Sorry, you can only support the cause if you HAVE cancer". It's the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Just because he's a straight white male doesn't mean he can't support anything. Isn't that basically supporting inequality? Which is the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to do?

 

If we're going to talk about artists who should be disbarred, we should throw Robin Thicke's name in there. I still can't believe a pro-rape song, with an additional disgusting music video, is allowed to go untouched and this macklemore guy continues to be bashed for his pro-gay stance.

 

EDIT:

And before I get jumped on, let me state i'm talking about the mentality being you can't support something if you aren't part of that group. I haven't heard the song in question or know the artist. I'm also just pointing out that there are a lot more artists out there who you should be angry at.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MysticTiger

[Obscure_Trash]

I don't understand this mentality that you have to be Gay or you have to be Black or you have to be Muslim or you have to be whatever race/religion/sexual orientation/etc to support equality within those race/religion/sexual orientation/etc. Can you imagine if you wanted to donate to Cancer research and they said, "Sorry, you can only support the cause if you HAVE cancer". It's the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Just because he's a straight white male doesn't mean he can't support anything. Isn't that basically supporting inequality? Which is the OPPOSITE of what you're trying to do?

 

If we're going to talk about artists who should be disbarred, we should throw Robin Thicke's name in there. I still can't believe a pro-rape song, with an additional disgusting music video, is allowed to go untouched and this macklemore guy continues to be bashed for his pro-gay stance.

 

EDIT:

And before I get jumped on, let me state i'm talking about the mentality being you can't support something if you aren't part of that group. I haven't heard the song in question or know the artist. I'm also just pointing out that there are a lot more artists out there who you should be angry at.

Not sure if you missed this post or misunderstood me. I don't like his song because he's made it clear he doesn't actually understand the issues we face, nor respect requests like 'don't use that word, it's a slur'.

 

The problem is that people coming from positions of privilege continually abuse their privilege, even when they're "allies". They demand ally cookies. They speak over people who face the issue. They don't research the issue so they can speak about it without ignorance even though oppressed peoples facing that issue themselves spend years researching the theories and ideas behind the oppression so they can speak with knowledge (and experience) on the subject.

 

~

 

Uh. Not sure how Robin Thicke's song has gone untouched. There is ANGER about it everywhere in the social justice community. I've spoken about it myself several times and argued with people who have told me 'it's fine'. I tried to call out SYTYCD when they used it on their show. Just because I haven't personally brought it up here doesn't mean I think it's okay. It just doesn't particularly pertain to this conversation and it's kind of really derailing to my point to throw in "you obviously don't care about this, so you're not allowed to care about thsi other issue".

Edited September 10, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[MysticTiger]

Not sure if you missed this post or misunderstood me. I don't like his song because he's made it clear he doesn't actually understand the issues we face, nor respect requests like 'don't use that word, it's a slur'.

 

~

 

Uh. Not sure how Robin Thicke's song has gone untouched. There is ANGER about it everywhere in the social justice community. I've spoken about it myself several times and argued with people who have told me 'it's fine'. I tried to call out SYTYCD when they used it on their show. Just because I haven't personally brought it up here doesn't mean I think it's okay. It just doesn't particularly pertain to this conversation. =\

Not sure if you missed the last edit I did so i'll repost it:

And before I get jumped on, let me state i'm talking about the mentality being you can't support something if you aren't part of that group. I haven't heard the song in question or know the artist. I'm also just pointing out that there are a lot more artists out there who you should be angry at.

 

I'm referring to this idea that because i'm not gay, I can't support gay rights because I don't suffer or fully understand the problems. I hadn't really heard this weird ideal brought to the foreground until this song came out. Now I hear it EVERYWHERE. Again, I haven't heard this song. I don't know the artist or his stance on the situation.

 

And I don't hear anything about Robin Thicke's song. But I hear this Macklemore's song controversy every day. It's gotten so bad on Tumblr that I had to unfollow people and block posts because it was ticking me off that badly.

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm just not sure why, when:

-a couple people say they like the song

-a couple people disagree and post why the song is problematic

The concern that weighs heavy enough on your mind to post is 'why can't people who don't belong to x marginalized group speak about it'. I just think there's an underlying mentality there that is part of the system I'm complaining about. ^^

(Which is common when this kind of stuff constantly inundates us. I mean, a while back I was using female-bodied instead of woman when discussing reproductive rights, not even realizing how or why that was just as problematic until I was called out on it. :3 )

 

~

 

I see it all the time. On tumblr. There's even been at least one video made to try and show how it could have been done in a less problematic way (which I haven't watched myself, partially because I haven't even watched Thicke's yet, either, but have seen critique going around about how it is problematic, too).

Edited September 10, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Cecona]

I don't think Sock is saying she doesn't want any hetero person to be an ally, but more that she doesn't want them to be an ally if they are only in it for money or attention, or are completely uneducated about the situation. She only wants true allies, not fake ones.

[teenyVictini]

I don't think Sock is saying she doesn't want any hetero person to be an ally, but more that she doesn't want them to be an ally if they are only in it for money or attention, or are completely uneducated about the situation. She only wants true allies, not fake ones.

and also an ally should speak WITH us, not OVER us. when an ally gets more recognition for doing something than someone of the actual oppressed group, it feels like no progress at all.

[KageSora]

I, actually, DO see people taking the "if you're not part of X, you have no right to talk about it!" stance. As in, they don't want allies--they don't see allies as possible, they see only themselves and their oppressors and allies are some mythical entity that's not possible in their mind.

 

Typically on Tumblr--and often, what people ARE accepted as allies are only accepted if they demonize themselves.

 

Not what Sock is saying, but I HAVE seen that attitude. The idea of "even if you take the time to understand our plight as much as possible for somebody who hasn't experienced it and speak with, not over, us, and you're not just bandwagoning or in it for selfish reasons, you're still a monster and you're not helping go away go die you piece of scum"is a real problem in some "social justice" circles--especially among the "~Tumblr Social Justice Warriors~".

[Pokemonfan13]

Wouldn't that just make things harder, if they shove away anyone who supports them who isn't a "member" of the oppressed group?

[teenyVictini]

Wouldn't that just make things harder, if they shove away anyone who supports them who isn't a "member" of the oppressed group?

I admit that sometimes it comes off as confrontational, but the problem is, LGBT+ rights in the media are represented by many, many cisgender straight people instead of the actual people affected. It then comes across as more of a way for the privileged to gain brownie points than for the oppressed to actually get their rights. We have voices and we don't want to be talked over. Allies are good, but they should not be the face of a movement that isn't for them.

 

I have problems with many attitudes on tumblr, but the prevalent attitude I've seen is that allies are great, as long as they aren't trampling over us in an attempt to seem compassionate.

[Cecona]

I, actually, DO see people taking the "if you're not part of X, you have no right to talk about it!" stance. As in, they don't want allies--they don't see allies as possible, they see only themselves and their oppressors and allies are some mythical entity that's not possible in their mind.

 

Typically on Tumblr--and often, what people ARE accepted as allies are only accepted if they demonize themselves.

 

Not what Sock is saying, but I HAVE seen that attitude. The idea of "even if you take the time to understand our plight as much as possible for somebody who hasn't experienced it and speak with, not over, us, and you're not just bandwagoning or in it for selfish reasons, you're still a monster and you're not helping go away go die you piece of scum"is a real problem in some "social justice" circles--especially among the "~Tumblr Social Justice Warriors~".

I've come across several of those kind of people, telling me that I can't be a supporter because I'm both hetero and cis. Thankfully I tend to stay away from the extreme social justice part of tumblr.

[lightbird]

I've come across several of those kind of people, telling me that I can't be a supporter because I'm both hetero and cis. Thankfully I tend to stay away from the extreme social justice part of tumblr.

Don't forget about "if you're white, then you're a monster by default".

 

[hazeh]

I'm really surprised to see the hate on Same Love here. I really adore that song. Ever since I heard it on the radio, I was so happy it was out there.

 

I really am not seeing the "issues" with it that were pointed out? He is a cishet white man using his privilege to shed light on a controversial issue, in way that cishet white people can grasp. Give them something to relate to and they'll listen. I've noticed a lot that if some feel too alienated or separated from a certain group, they have a much harder time listening to them speak about their issues (the whole blindness thing, I think?). When they have someone of their own community going, "HEY, LISTEN UP", it's easier for them to understand what's going on.

 

Yes, his lyrics about thinking he was gay because he drew pictures was about stereotypes, it literally says that in the song itself. It's about the ridiculousness of stereotypes and how it's wrong that children have a fear of something they shouldn't fear.

And I don't think Macklemore is completely ignorant to the subject. Even if he's not personally a part of the community, his uncles are, and that makes it a personal matter. You don't have to have direct personal experience with a situation in order for it to be important to you. The intro of the song was not about the community but about him LEARNING about what it meant to be an ally and his experience as an ignorant cishet white man. So of course it's not comparable, that's not even the point.

 

I really appreciate Macklemore's song. I really love that he had a member of the community doing the song with him. I always smile whenever I hear the song on the radio; first time I heard it come on, I thought, "Wow! I can't believe this is actually playing on the radio! This is so wonderful!" and I laughed and teared up while I sat in my car listening to the lyrics

 

Edit: Also I feel like everyone completely missed the purpose of using the gay slur in the song. He's not reclaiming it or anything, he used it to POINT OUT THAT IT IS A PROBLEM

 

Editedit: And it's like no one even saw the music video! How can you hate the song after seeing the music video? Macklemore showed up for like, 5 seconds!

Edited September 10, 2013 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Htt71]

Anyone else think it's ironic MackleCantThinkOfSmethingWitty talks about sterotypes used agains homosexuals, by using sterotypes against religious people and republicans. I'm right wing and Catholic, but do I have a problem with them? No. Not at all, well, as long as they don't rub it in! And you know what I mean. When someone does something, not just singling people out, and the gloats when they can do it without any resistance. Anyways that's just what I wanted to say on this, toodles!

[Obscure_Trash]

He is a cishet white man using his privilege to shed light on a controversial issue, in way that cishet white people can grasp.

 

But if you're teaching those issues in problematic ways, you're not really helping.

 

EDIT: And I'd like to clarify that, as I said, I personally don't like it. Others do. But just remember that even when we like something, we can be aware of and criticize its problematic aspects. Goodness knows I like enough problematic shows. ;3

 

Not at all, well, as long as they don't rub it in! And you know what I mean.

 

I don't actually know what you mean, no.

Edited September 10, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Riverwillows]

Saw a funny meme today. Two girls in bed, holding hands, looking at the reader. Caption says "So you love to watch us make out, but you won't let us marry??"

 

Totally true. Guys get so off on two girls getting intimate, they don't connect the fact that the girls just MIGHT be gay, which is why they are getting intimate. Duh!

 

Guess I'm tired of the hypocritical bullpucky that goes with all this.

[Zovesta]

Guys get so off on two girls getting intimate

Same goes with chicks and gay guys, too, don't forget. ;P

 

But yeah it's the whole "lesbian only for you" thing. Annoying, yet I don't see it crop up as much as people like to complain...

[teenyVictini]

Same goes with chicks and gay guys, too, don't forget. ;P

learned a few days ago there's an "official sexuality" for that and it's pretty gross and pretty much comes down to trying to legitimize the fetishization of homosexuality

[brairtrainer]

Thought I'd post this with a bit of background: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/c...rriage-20167816

 

Longstory short NM has no laws about same sex marriage but has a law that makes it illegal to discriminate depending on sex or sexual preference. The result has been clerks giving out close to 900 marriage liscences to same sex couples. Now the clerics orginzation is requesting the court to rule on whether or not these marriages are in line with NM law.

[KageSora]

Don't forget about "if you're white, then you're a monster by default".

Yep.

 

But my personal favorites are the "if you're a rich white cishet male then YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MONSTER SCUM EVER GO DIE KILL YOURSELF YOU HORRIBLE MONSTER YOU ARE NEVER ALLOWED TO BE UNHAPPY EVER YOU CAN'T HAVE DEPRESSION STOP LYING IT'S A MENTAL ILLNESS EXCEPT YOUR PRIVILEGE MAKES YOU IMMUNE TO IT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY SUFFER FROM LEGITIMATE ISSUES GO AWAY DEMON" people.

 

I long ago stopped being able to take them seriously.

 

I've come across several of those kind of people, telling me that I can't be a supporter because I'm both hetero and cis. Thankfully I tend to stay away from the extreme social justice part of tumblr.

Yep. It's a disturbingly toxic culture filled with hate and self-hate, and I'm really glad I mostly only see it when a post correcting such idiocy strays across my dash.

 

learned a few days ago there's an "official sexuality" for that and it's pretty gross and pretty much comes down to trying to legitimize the fetishization of homosexuality

...Please, do tell what this "official sexuality" is? I know there's fetishization and all, but I've never heard of it referred to as an "official sexuality"--how does one even get a sexuality recognized as official, anyway? I only ever hear that kind of talk coming from people who think fetish = connected to sexual orientation (which just isn't true, a fetish has nothing to do with your sexual orientation)

[MysticTiger]

Allies are good, but they should not be the face of a movement that isn't for them.

And, this right here is the problem i'm talking about.

 

This idea that, if someone is doing something that's getting attention, but they're not part of group x, it's somehow less legitimate and/or stepping over boundaries and/or insulting. You realize this mentality is making "allies" less willing to take a stand? What's the point of doing anything if the group you're trying to support is going to attack you for it? Again, it's like the idea that someone can't be in a cancer research commercial asking for support because they don't have cancer. If they thought that way, they'd never have support. What if, during the civil war, African Americans told Lincoln not to support their cause because he wasn't black and didn't understand their struggles? If you're shedding light on a group or situation that is normally swept under the rug, why is this a bad thing? Companies use celebrities to promote their products, even if the celebrity doesn't use their product. It's about making the biggest impact with the most known person you can find. It's about a CAUSE not about the PERSON. The person is just the podium on which to spread the MESSAGE.

[Emeraldmay]

And, this right here is the problem i'm talking about.

 

This idea that, if someone is doing something that's getting attention, but they're not part of group x, it's somehow less legitimate and/or stepping over boundaries and/or insulting. You realize this mentality is making "allies" less willing to take a stand? What's the point of doing anything if the group you're trying to support is going to attack you for it? Again, it's like the idea that someone can't be in a cancer research commercial asking for support because they don't have cancer. If they thought that way, they'd never have support. What if, during the civil war, African Americans told Lincoln not to support their cause because he wasn't black and didn't understand their struggles? If you're shedding light on a group or situation that is normally swept under the rug, why is this a bad thing? Companies use celebrities to promote their products, even if the celebrity doesn't use their product. It's about making the biggest impact with the most known person you can find. It's about a CAUSE not about the PERSON. The person is just the podium on which to spread the MESSAGE.

I think that in the racial equality movement in the USA, the black community wanted a black figurehead because then they would be petitioning for their rights, while if a white person was their figurehead, it would be seen as them being given equality as an almost 'gift' from the white people, instead of them managing to get it for themselves. (Read this in a textbook).

 

Not my opinion on this situation, but could be some people's viewpoints I guess?

 

I feel that if you aren't willing to accept help from those who support you, then what's the point of trying to get more people to support you? I understand that things can be misportrayed, and sometimes somebody's heart being in the right place just isn't good enough if it hurts a movement, and misinterpretation of events can be insulting. I guess I just see it as a step in the right direction.

[Jennie]

This idea that, if someone is doing something that's getting attention, but they're not part of group x, it's somehow less legitimate and/or stepping over boundaries and/or insulting.

 

Yes. Also the idea that if you don't belong to group x, that you cannot possibly have had similar problems or experiences in life, or if you did, your 'privilege' made up for it, and that you should never mention those similar experiences because that's 'appropriation'.

 

I thought we were all human, and that the sharing of life experiences was one of the comforts of being human and being able to tell our stories. For example, LGBT people often get bullied in school. It's now starting to seem, via the media, that ONLY LGBT people get bullied in school. This is not true. I'm not LGBT, but I was horribly bullied. However, if I were to point that out, some people would accuse me of trying to appropriate their experiences, or trying to 'derail' the conversation. Or they'd say I couldn't possibly have suffered as much as LGBT children do. This kind of thing gets us nowhere in my opinion, it only puts up dividing walls.

 

A few years ago, a former online 'friend' of mine started referring to 'White Women's Tears'. As far as I know, she's White herself. Certainly she's never talked about her experiences as an African American, or Asian American. She does talk a lot about bigotry, which is fine as far as it goes, but then she started to use this phrase, which seems to suggest that White women cannot feel authentic pain, or cannot legitimately cry. If White women cry, in other words, it's all crocodile tears, or an attempt to appropriate the pain that People of Colour suffer. A similar phrase, I suppose, would be 'Straight People's Tears'.

 

Only a few decades ago, there were laws throughout a good part of the US, which made it illegal for heterosexuals of different races from marrying, and that fact has been raised a lot during the debate on Equal Marriage for LGBT people. That fact has been very useful in the debate, because it shows how minds can be changed, and laws can be changed without destroying all of society, and also that bigotry really knows no boundaries.

[KageSora]

I've seen "white girl tears" "male tears" "white boy tears" "straight people tears" etc. a lot when it comes to ~Tumblr Social Justice Warriors~ and it's just...

 

Wow. Okay, no, not okay. Sadness and unhappiness are not measured on a universal scale, it is acceptable for a person to be unhappy if, relative to the level of comfort they usually experience, something is not going right.

 

The idea of "if you have X privilege you don't get to be sad" is BS because by that logic, only one person/group in the entire world would ever be allowed to complain at any given time because everybody else would have it better.

 

 

While I get some of the frustration--obviously, you can't 100% equate different struggles--I think more people need to recognize that drawing a parallel to highlight something isn't the same thing as trying to say two struggles by different groups are 100% identical.

 

Yes, there are people who say "black rights struggle = gay rights struggle" and such, which obviously isn't true. But it IS possible to say "there are some parallels we can draw between the struggle for racial equality and the struggle for equality based on sexual orientation due to some similarities in certain aspects".

 

People also strongly fail to underestimate the idea of empathy--I may not have gone through the exact struggle of another person, but that doesn't mean that I can't have at least a partial understanding of it based on their description. I wouldn't, of course, claim to know exactly how they have struggled and what they've gone through. But I can, based either on my own experiences or their descriptions or both, empathize with them.

 

Bullying, for example. Was I bullied for being LGBTQIA/etc.? No. But, I was bullied for being on the autism spectrum. Therefore, I can understand the idea of being bullied for something beyond your control, something you were born with. It's not, of course, the exact same as somebody bullied for race or gender identity or sexual orientation. But it's similar, and therefore I can have some level of understanding and appreciation for what they've experienced.

 

A person who was bullied for reasons beyond those related to how they were born can STILL have some level of understanding and appreciation because they experienced bullying. It won't quite be the same as somebody who experienced bullying for how they were born, but it's still an experience that gives them the ability to better empathize with the pain suffered by others.

 

A lot of times, people just act as if drawing parallels is evil and that empathy doesn't exist. :|

[teenyVictini]

Let me explain. Yes, Abraham Lincoln did things for the rights of African Americans, and that's fine. But why should a white person be a rallying point for the rights of African Americans? Martin Luther King Jr. knew the struggle his people were going through. His views could be seen as more legitimate because he's experienced it.

 

I'm an amputee. Can you say you honestly know the pain I've gone through, without having had an amputation yourself? Sure, maybe you slammed your finger in a door, or got a nasty cut, but have you ever gone through full amputation? Can you personally relate to what I've been through, and understand the problems I face? And even then, would I want you to vouch for me? Why, when I can speak for myself? I appreciate the support, but if a subject pertains to me, it's my voice I want heard.

 

I have nothing against straight allies. There can be as many as they want. However, if you'd quit the movement just because sometimes you have to be told your voice isn't always the most important in the room, I'm wondering just how dedicated you were in the first place.

 

As an aside: I mentioned I disagree with many of the attitudes on Tumblr, and the "[group i dislike] tears" is one of them. I do not speak for them.

Edited September 10, 2013 by teenyVictini

[Obscure_Trash]

Thought I'd post this with a bit of background: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/c...rriage-20167816

 

Longstory short  NM has no laws about same sex marriage but has a law that makes it illegal to discriminate depending on sex or sexual preference. The result has been clerks giving out close to 900 marriage liscences to same sex couples. Now the clerics orginzation is requesting the court to rule on whether or not these marriages are in line with NM law.

Yup. After being like the one state with absolutely no laws on it whatsoever, we seem to have finally entered into the battle for rights. My inbox was getting tons of political updates on it a few days ago. =U

 

I do hope for the best. School got kind of busy, so I'm not as up on it as I'd like to be. Thanks for the reminder to go update myself!

 

I've seen "white girl tears" "male tears" "white boy tears" "straight people tears" etc. a lot when it comes to ~Tumblr Social Justice Warriors~ and it's just...

 

Wow. Okay, no, not okay. Sadness and unhappiness are not measured on a universal scale, it is acceptable for a person to be unhappy if, relative to the level of comfort they usually experience, something is not going right.

 

The idea of "if you have X privilege you don't get to be sad" is BS because by that logic, only one person/group in the entire world would ever be allowed to complain at any given time because everybody else would have it better.

 

This is not at all what "privileged tears" are about. "Privileged tears" are when a person of privilege invades the safe space of a marginalized group, derails the topic, and tries to make things about them. It's also used when a person of privilege comes into a topic without any education on the subject and spreads misinformation to deny the oppression being discussed.

 

Ex. A blog that focuses on rape culture education brings the intersectionality that black women are at higher risk than white women for rape, and native women, by far, have the greatest risk of being raped.

A person of privilege (a white cisman or a white ciswoman) interrupts the discussion to say "but we're all just people and we're all at risk for being raped, and why do you even need to bring this up and treat white women like we're so much safer than other women".

It could be said that the person of privilege is spouting "white tears" or "privileged tears".

 

I'm sure this gets misused, but the idea behind "privileged tears" isn't that you can't be sad if you're in a position of privilege. In fact, I see blogs having to explain this to concern trolls all the time. Of course you can be sad. You can be discriminated against. But to invade into a conversation about racial inequality or racialized sex or gender equality with something that happened to you to prove that intersectionality doesn't exist is problematic and, in this case, racist. There are other safe spaces to talk about what you've experienced and there are plenty of ways to bring what you've experienced to safe spaces in a way that doesn't deny the oppression/s of other people. That's what the whole 'tears' thing is about.

 

And it's fine if you don't take that route, but I feel it deserves an explanation here.

 

But why should a white person be a rallying point for the rights of African Americans?

 

This exactly. It's frustrating to read up on a subject, write about a subject, hold discussions on a subject, and become well educated on a subject and continually be silenced because you experience said subject while the face of someone who hasn't put any of the same kind of time and research into the subject and who does not experience the subject is the only voice getting out there. And then these people use their role of "ally" to escape and brush off critique of their problematic behavior.

 

It's a really tricky thing in social justice because various oppression institutions and structures teaches us not to value the opinions of the oppressed, especially when they speak on their oppression. Instead we laugh at them and silence them and don't take them seriously. Best way I can explain it is with the results of a recent study: when told that certain police actions were racially unequal and racist against darker-skinned people, white people actually supported these methods and actions more than before.

 

Oppression structures teach us that marginalized peoples are bad, they are evil, and they will kill you if you allow them to rise up. They are a danger. Therefore, they deserve the inequality so that you can stay safe.

 

And that is really the crux of the problem we're getting at here.

 

It's great to be an ally! But be an educated ally who doesn't speak over the group you are allied with, who knows how to properly react when called out, and who uses their privilege as a platform to give voice to the people who are being silenced.

Edited September 10, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler