The Atlantic - Latest Comments in A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

BreakerBaker — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:07:15 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Andybhoboken — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:25:38 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Gully — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:43:16 -0000

there's no social stigma associated with being Irish

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

MAJeff — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:48:49 -0000

Your concern is noted.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

BreakerBaker — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:29:29 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

BreakerBaker — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:04:25 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Darkrose — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:35:39 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Darkrose — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:27:33 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

homais — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:37:41 -0000

Where, exactly, does Coates call Jefferson a bigot?

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Patrick — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:14:55 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

BreakerBaker — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:01:34 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Josh Jasper — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:32:26 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Persia — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:26:50 -0000

That's really well put. Thank you.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Persia — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:26:21 -0000

Exactly. (Glad you thought it was funny, anyway!)

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Mavis Beacon — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:11:29 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

monstereyes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:55:48 -0000

So, not to knitpick, but nobody calls it San Fran.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

BreakerBaker — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:50:32 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:10:32 -0000

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.

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:

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.

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

BreakerBaker — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:45:02 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Josh Jasper — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:21 -0000

That's the point of it. We're giving shame and fear the finger.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Josh Jasper — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:18:26 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Patrick — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:12:36 -0000

@ Persia

Yes, Pesia, I should have included the /obvioussarcasm tag.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Josh Jasper — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:10:05 -0000

I withdraw my support for equal rights.

You never had any in the first place.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

homais — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:03:05 -0000

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.

Re: A Gay Pride Parade For Bigots

Ogdred — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:58:00 -0000

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.