similarities (or not) of modern day gay pride and nationalism

[frogwoman]

on another thread butchersapron said that Judith Butler had written about this. I've made my own observations about this for years but I'd quite like to read something more in depth about it, that is either going to tell me i'm completely wrong or support the kind of conclusions i've come to.

there are a few people on here who have talked about this, i was mainly thinking about it because of biphobia and so on, and the idea that for example bisexuals are "traitors" to the gay cause and so on.

does anyone have any reading suggestions?

 

[Athos]

What are the observations you've made, that you're hoping the reading will support or refute?

 

[frogwoman]

well that some of the attitudes i came across when i was involved in LGBT stuff when younger and the fact that gay pride has been like largely depoliticised and the fact that there's more of an emphasis sometimes on separateness and for example gay pride flags and that sort of thing means that it's quite reminiscent of nationalism sometimes.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

dunno really.

'nationalism' covers quite a range of things - there's the sort of nationalism that involves maintaining / reviving / promoting a national / regional identity (language / culture etc?) within a larger current nation state, and at the other end of things, there's the sort of nationalism that is anti-immigrant and all that goes with that.

and what's called "the gay community" is nothing like one single, homogenous group (and that's before you get in to the question of to what extend it does or should include bi people, lesbians and gay men together, trans people)

In the big cities at least, 'Pride' is largely commercialised and no longer exclusive to 'the gay community' - compare & contrast with Notting Hill Carnival, the commercialisation of St Patrick's Day.

The 'gay pride' (rainbow) flag is an import from the USA - I remember people wearing relatively discreet pink / black triangle badges in the 80s, but don't remember venues making themselves that obvious.

I'd say that the 'gay community' is more fragmented than it was 25 years ago - there isn't the same level of perceived threat (e.g. overtly homophobic government, AIDS) there was in the late 80s, so less standing together against those threats.

It is also now possible to be connected to others online - whether that's social groups, web forums, safer sex information, or shag-seeking, hence a relative decline in community newspapers / magazines / spaces and bars etc.

And what remains of the commercial scene is (again, certainly in the larger cities) more niche now - there are venues catering mainly for the disco dollies, venues catering for the 'bears' and so on, rather than what may have been an artificial solidarity brought about by a need for those local 'safe spaces' in the past.

There's also more 'assimilation' - arguably less need for 'safe space' (or self-imposed ghetto, depending on your viewpoint), and it is easier for gay people to aspire to / live in the mainstream - gay couples can do the barratland, ford mondeo, 2.4 labradors (or even children), 'professional' job, tory voting lifestyle and go out to mainstream places.

Whether this truly represents progress is questionable, especially when you get into the realms of the self defining 'straight acting' types who look down on 'those gays' who still do anything political or argue that we haven't yet reached utopia...

What was the question again?

 

[frogwoman]

those are really good points, i was just wondering like to what extent the gay pride movement had taken on some of the characteristics of nationalism (as you say though, not that there really is one gay pride movement or even one gay community) i'm thinking of things like for example when i was a lot younger bisexual people were sometimes seen weirdly, like the attitude was expressed that "they had to decide" and there was an idea that they weren't really bisexual and were confused or just doing it to impress the opposite sex. Also, a few people in LGBT groups giving tories etc the time of day because they weren't homophobic.

i was wondering to what extent these attitudes in organised LGBT groups are connected with the fact that it's become increasingly depoliticised, and to what extent it could be likened to nationalism. I'd like to read something in depth about it as well.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

There's certainly still some bi-phobia in the 'gay community' although not convinced it's as bad as it was.

I've known a few people who have (presumably being bi to start with) said they have 'chosen' to be gay or lesbian as a political thing. Certainly on the female side of the fence, there's also the feminism / separatism issue at play here.

There's then some fetishisation of 'straight' / bi men which seems more a case of self-loathing than anything else.

 

[frogwoman]

There's certainly still some bi-phobia in the 'gay community' although not convinced it's as bad as it was.

I've known a few people who have (presumably being bi to start with) said they have 'chosen' to be gay or lesbian as a political thing. Certainly on the female side of the fence, there's also the feminism / separatism issue at play here.

There's then some fetishisation of 'straight' / bi men which seems more a case of self-loathing than anything else.

you're right, i don't think it's nearly as bad as it was either. Also your right the "gay community" is a lot more fragmented with some gay people never going to gay clubs etc and meeting partners etc in predominantly straight environments, a lot of the time because of the fact there's much less homophobia than there used to be

 

[Clair De Lune]

Stonewall are transphobic as shit, at least they are open about it by leaving out the T though, whereas other supposedly LGBT organisations merely make trans women aware they are not welcome when they try to join

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Stonewall are transphobic as shit, at least they are open about it by leaving out the T though, whereas other supposedly LGBT organisations merely make trans women aware they are not welcome when they try to join

I'm not convinced that Stonewall are 'transphobic'

While there is an argument that there is common ground as far as gay / bi people and trans people are concerned (and there are of course trans people who are bi or who are gay in their 'new' gender), there is also an argument that the two are separate, and it is reasonable for each to argue their cause broadly separately rather than being 'lumped in with' each other in a 'coalition of everybody else'.

Similarly, it is arguable that there is no single 'black community' encompassing all non-white people. Yes, there is common ground and potential for solidarity, but (for example) the Chinese community in Soho will probably have a different agenda and issues from the Sikh community in Gravesend.

There is a danger in charities / campaign groups jumping on every worthy cause going, and ending up losing sight of what it was set up for, and it seems reasonable enough for a charity to say "this is our remit, that isn't". A charity / campaign group that specialises in HIV / AIDS related issues is not 'anti' cancer or any other health issue, it's just not its remit.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I think Puddy_Tat is right - when equality advances the need for separateness wanes. A natural progression I think, especially as the campaigning emphasis changes, and gay venues shift more towards a commercial space (or more obviously than before anyway).

I wouldn't liken it to nationalism though - that seems a stretch going on my brief thoughts about that. It might share some characteristics though, but that isn't to say it can be likened to nationalism itself.

But an interesting idea which I'll ponder and post again if I think of anything.

 

[frogwoman]

interesting posts. i wonder whether the sort of stuff i've mentioned could be a reactionary reaction against the sort of changes you've both talked about above.

good points tho

 

[Clair De Lune]

I'm not convinced that Stonewall are 'transphobic'

While there is an argument that there is common ground as far as gay / bi people and trans people are concerned (and there are of course trans people who are bi or who are gay in their 'new' gender), there is also an argument that the two are separate, and it is reasonable for each to argue their cause broadly separately rather than being 'lumped in with' each other in a 'coalition of everybody else'.

Similarly, it is arguable that there is no single 'black community' encompassing all non-white people. Yes, there is common ground and potential for solidarity, but (for example) the Chinese community in Soho will probably have a different agenda and issues from the Sikh community in Gravesend.

There is a danger in charities / campaign groups jumping on every worthy cause going, and ending up losing sight of what it was set up for, and it seems reasonable enough for a charity to say "this is our remit, that isn't". A charity / campaign group that specialises in HIV / AIDS related issues is not 'anti' cancer or any other health issue, it's just not its remit.

With all due respect, I was not attempting to convince you, but if you wish to dig deep enough I think you may find it true for yourself. If it were like you say, it wouldn't be as bad but having not only looked into it a little myself and been on gay pride marches with a transgender organisation and Stonewall right behind us, has given me reason to believe there is a lot more to the fact they are only LGB, than trans issues not being in their remit. They freely mixed and smiled at everyone on the march, but refused to even look at the people directly in front of them, it was shocking. They even ran an anti bullying capaign in 2009 in which they referred to trans-gendered folk as 'trannies' ffs.
Yes there are plenty of gay and bi trans folk and it is offensive and discriminatory to exclude them imo. When you start asking questions about it, some of the answers are not very nice at all. I mention it on this thread because the issue of biphobia has already been raised. Well believe me, if you are trans and gay, then many organisations supposedly promoting equality & diversity are not only unhelpful, but downright dismissive. Quite a few lesbian groups around here won't accept trans women either. Luckily there are some positive support groups/outreach centres popping up of late, as well as education and arts projects.

 

[ViolentPanda]

on another thread butchersapron said that Judith Butler had written about this. I've made my own observations about this for years but I'd quite like to read something more in depth about it, that is either going to tell me i'm completely wrong or support the kind of conclusions i've come to.

there are a few people on here who have talked about this, i was mainly thinking about it because of biphobia and so on, and the idea that for example bisexuals are "traitors" to the gay cause and so on.

does anyone have any reading suggestions?

I don't have any reading suggestions, but I think there's a big issue with the de-politicisation and repoliticisation (along more mainstream lines) of LGBT attitudes. IMO some of what might formerly have been viewed as "overtly political" activism by different elements of the LGBT community, and also by factions of the different strands within the LGBT community, has evolved (or you could equally say devolved) into a degree of "lifestylism" that pushes conformity to a groupthink with regard to community issues. Where there used to be fractious debate, there's sometimes an attitude of "let the spokespeople speak for us" - a "turn to authority" that can be hard to grok, given how hard members and elements of the communities fought to speak for themselves.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[ViolentPanda]

dunno really.

'nationalism' covers quite a range of things - there's the sort of nationalism that involves maintaining / reviving / promoting a national / regional identity (language / culture etc?) within a larger current nation state, and at the other end of things, there's the sort of nationalism that is anti-immigrant and all that goes with that.

It appears to me that what Froggie is talking about isn't nationalism in gay communities, it's how a set of behaviours that seem similar to (often unthinking) nationalism sometimes manifest, especially in terms of conforming to supposed community norms.

and what's called "the gay community" is nothing like one single, homogenous group (and that's before you get in to the question of to what extend it does or should include bi people, lesbians and gay men together, trans people)

In the big cities at least, 'Pride' is largely commercialised and no longer exclusive to 'the gay community' - compare & contrast with Notting Hill Carnival, the commercialisation of St Patrick's Day.

The 'gay pride' (rainbow) flag is an import from the USA - I remember people wearing relatively discreet pink / black triangle badges in the 80s, but don't remember venues making themselves that obvious.

I'd say that the 'gay community' is more fragmented than it was 25 years ago - there isn't the same level of perceived threat (e.g. overtly homophobic government, AIDS) there was in the late 80s, so less standing together against those threats.

I absolutely agree about the lack of effective rallying points, but I also think (purely from my own social observations over the decades) that there's an issue with regard to the LGBT community being more settled than it has ever previously been, and that this very stability can encourage a kind of social conservatism in people who might previously have been seen shouting their activism from the rooftops.

It is also now possible to be connected to others online - whether that's social groups, web forums, safer sex information, or shag-seeking, hence a relative decline in community newspapers / magazines / spaces and bars etc.

To which I'd also add (at least for the past 5 years) the withdrawal of some funding streams for community print media and social spaces. It hasn't exerted as much of an effect as cyber-socialising, but it all comes to bear.

And what remains of the commercial scene is (again, certainly in the larger cities) more niche now - there are venues catering mainly for the disco dollies, venues catering for the 'bears' and so on, rather than what may have been an artificial solidarity brought about by a need for those local 'safe spaces' in the past.

There's also more 'assimilation' - arguably less need for 'safe space' (or self-imposed ghetto, depending on your viewpoint), and it is easier for gay people to aspire to / live in the mainstream - gay couples can do the barratland, ford mondeo, 2.4 labradors (or even children), 'professional' job, tory voting lifestyle and go out to mainstream places.

Whether this truly represents progress is questionable, especially when you get into the realms of the self defining 'straight acting' types who look down on 'those gays' who still do anything political or argue that we haven't yet reached utopia...

What was the question again?

"Straight acting" gays have always confused me, ever since one described himself to me as "a heterosexual who only fucks men, basically". Made me scratch my head, that did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Stonewall are transphobic as shit, at least they are open about it by leaving out the T though, whereas other supposedly LGBT organisations merely make trans women aware they are not welcome when they try to join

Stonewall have always come across to me as pretty "mainstream" in that they appear to mainly target their activism at gay and lesbian topics and subjects. Whether that's from a perspective of being transphobic, from a perspective of being mainstream or from a perspective of not being willing to engage with trans issues because they don't know enough about them to feel able to act as advocates for those issues, I don't know.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Another issue with this is whether you mean gay pride as a march/celebration/party/whatever - the things usually held in summer each year, or gay pride more generally - that is, of individual gay people. The gay 'community' is as diverse as the general community, with the usual spectrum of views, beliefs, agendas and so on, so it is difficult to lump it all together into one heterogeneous blob and decide whether or not it is similar to nationalism.

But with regard to your OP frogwoman - I've never seen any prejudice against bisexual people from within the gay community, although I don't doubt that it exists in some quarters. I suspect some of the more ardent 'gayers' might have an issue with people who are bisexual because it might spoil their monochrome worldview, but I think this is perhaps limited to certain people rather than the whole population of a few million gay people.

Its well known that plenty of men who seek sex with other men in certain situations (like cruising/cottaging/online sites) are married, so it would be reasonable to assume these men are bisexual at least, with some (a minority possibly) who are really gay but remain married for whatever reason. Again, I've never seen any issue with that particularly, as the view generally has been that a cock is a cock. But that might be a peculiarity of the people I've spoken to in Manchester.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not convinced that Stonewall are 'transphobic'

While there is an argument that there is common ground as far as gay / bi people and trans people are concerned (and there are of course trans people who are bi or who are gay in their 'new' gender), there is also an argument that the two are separate, and it is reasonable for each to argue their cause broadly separately rather than being 'lumped in with' each other in a 'coalition of everybody else'.

Similarly, it is arguable that there is no single 'black community' encompassing all non-white people. Yes, there is common ground and potential for solidarity, but (for example) the Chinese community in Soho will probably have a different agenda and issues from the Sikh community in Gravesend.

That's interesting.
One of the things I've noticed during 4 decades ('70s - now) being involved in politics and social issues, is that we did in effect use to have a single cohesive "black community" that was pretty effective in representing the agendas and issues of black and minority ethnic people in the UK, and that that cohesiveness was deliberately eroded with the introduction of an "offical" version of multiculturalism that set the sub-communities against each other in terms of competing for finite funding.

There is a danger in charities / campaign groups jumping on every worthy cause going, and ending up losing sight of what it was set up for, and it seems reasonable enough for a charity to say "this is our remit, that isn't". A charity / campaign group that specialises in HIV / AIDS related issues is not 'anti' cancer or any other health issue, it's just not its remit.

There's also some danger in charities stagnating if they don't at least look into at least some of those "worthy causes" that may tangentially affect or crosscut their own work.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

<snip>


"Straight acting" gays have always confused me, ever since one described himself to me as "a heterosexual who only fucks men, basically". Made me scratch my head, that did.

'Straight acting' is nonsense, and is just code for 'not camp' 'not obviously gay' 'likes football' or whatever. In one way it could be viewed as the man stating this as having some kind of insecurity about their sexuality, or projecting something. But gay men, like any men, come in all flavours, so there is naturally a variation in personality type - a lot of bears for example could pass as 'straight acting' if by that the image is of a non-camp man.

 

[8115]

I perceive them as being very different because gay pride is rooted in anti-oppression, and nationalism isn't.

 

[RedDragon]

Go

dunno really.

'nationalism' covers quite a range of things - there's the sort of nationalism that involves maintaining / reviving / promoting a national / regional identity (language / culture etc?) within a larger current nation state, and at the other end of things, there's the sort of nationalism that is anti-immigrant and all that goes with that.

and what's called "the gay community" is nothing like one single, homogenous group (and that's before you get in to the question of to what extend it does or should include bi people, lesbians and gay men together, trans people)

In the big cities at least, 'Pride' is largely commercialised and no longer exclusive to 'the gay community' - compare & contrast with Notting Hill Carnival, the commercialisation of St Patrick's Day.

The 'gay pride' (rainbow) flag is an import from the USA - I remember people wearing relatively discreet pink / black triangle badges in the 80s, but don't remember venues making themselves that obvious.

I'd say that the 'gay community' is more fragmented than it was 25 years ago - there isn't the same level of perceived threat (e.g. overtly homophobic government, AIDS) there was in the late 80s, so less standing together against those threats.

It is also now possible to be connected to others online - whether that's social groups, web forums, safer sex information, or shag-seeking, hence a relative decline in community newspapers / magazines / spaces and bars etc.

And what remains of the commercial scene is (again, certainly in the larger cities) more niche now - there are venues catering mainly for the disco dollies, venues catering for the 'bears' and so on, rather than what may have been an artificial solidarity brought about by a need for those local 'safe spaces' in the past.

There's also more 'assimilation' - arguably less need for 'safe space' (or self-imposed ghetto, depending on your viewpoint), and it is easier for gay people to aspire to / live in the mainstream - gay couples can do the barratland, ford mondeo, 2.4 labradors (or even children), 'professional' job, tory voting lifestyle and go out to mainstream places.

Whether this truly represents progress is questionable, especially when you get into the realms of the self defining 'straight acting' types who look down on 'those gays' who still do anything political or argue that we haven't yet reached utopia...

What was the question again?

Excellent summary, Puddy_Tat, although I'm a tad disappointed I won't be able to join the armed-wing of the GLF anytime soon (especially given what happened in India today) .

 

[peterkro]

When I was young and naive (and a builder) I thought gay customers wouldn't try and rip me off (they suffered oppression like the rest of us right) I soon woke up to that.It's a mistake to imagine any grouping (gay,black,trans,whatever) have some sort of recognition of others suffering and will treat them accordingly.If it wasn't bleedingly obvious the "Pink Pound" scam reinforced it.Treat people as they treat you,assuming one group will be more sympathetic is a mistake in my opinion.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

With all due respect, I was not attempting to convince you, but if you wish to dig deep enough I think you may find it true for yourself. If it were like you say, it wouldn't be as bad but having not only looked into it a little myself and been on gay pride marches with a transgender organisation and Stonewall right behind us, has given me reason to believe there is a lot more to the fact they are only LGB, than trans issues not being in their remit. They freely mixed and smiled at everyone on the march, but refused to even look at the people directly in front of them, it was shocking. They even ran an anti bullying capaign in 2009 in which they referred to trans-gendered folk as 'trannies' ffs.

Yes there are plenty of gay and bi trans folk and it is offensive and discriminatory to exclude them imo. When you start asking questions about it, some of the answers are not very nice at all. I mention it on this thread because the issue of biphobia has already been raised. Well believe me, if you are trans and gay, then many organisations supposedly promoting equality & diversity are not only unhelpful, but downright dismissive. Quite a few lesbian groups around here won't accept trans women either. Luckily there are some positive support groups/outreach centres popping up of late, as well as education and arts projects.

That does sound kinda shitty. I've not personally noticed this sort of attitude / behaviour from Stonewall.

and

That having been said, I expect there are some trans people who "don't want to be lumped in with" LGB people.

I'm also aware that the issue of welcoming trans people into a gender-specific space (not necessarily an LGB one) is difficult. While not personally involved, I have heard one or two stories about cross-dressing men getting into women only spaces and then behaving inappropriately. hence perhaps some wariness. I don't feel qualified to start thinking about what the answer here is.

'Straight acting' is nonsense, and is just code for 'not camp' 'not obviously gay' 'likes football' or whatever. In one way it could be viewed as the man stating this as having some kind of insecurity about their sexuality, or projecting something. But gay men, like any men, come in all flavours, so there is naturally a variation in personality type - a lot of bears for example could pass as 'straight acting' if by that the image is of a non-camp man.

This is something that does get debated to some lengths.

I like football, tinkering with things mechanical, don't really enjoy shopping and am pretty clueless when it comes to fashion and interior decor. Having said that, I feel deeply uncomfortable with the "straight acting" concept, especially when it comes to using that as a 'selling point' in personal ads and the like, or implying that 'straight acting' gay men are somehow superior to 'camp' gay men.

A while back I encountered (in the process of sociological research, you understand) a male art' website that sells along the lines of being images of "100% normal, healthy, straight men". I feel deeply uncomfortable with that. Ultimately, an attractive body (or parts thereof) is in the eye of the beholder, and in isolation, doesn't really matter wtf they do with it in private. But trying to sell to gay men on the basis that they are less than 100% normal or healthy? Fuck off.

I perceive them as being very different because gay pride is rooted in anti-oppression, and nationalism isn't.

Depends. Some would argue that (for example) Irish nationalism is rooted in anti oppression. That's harder to spin for the BNP's version of nationalism.

I've never seen any prejudice against bisexual people from within the gay community, although I don't doubt that it exists in some quarters. I suspect some of the more ardent 'gayers' might have an issue with people who are bisexual because it might spoil their monochrome worldview, but I think this is perhaps limited to certain people rather than the whole population of a few million gay people.

it's there.

sometimes from a political point of view (noticed it more from lesbians than gay men on this angle) - as somehow 'betraying the cause'

some bi people do the 'respectable heterosexual family person' thing overtly and have secret gay liaisons - the criticism of wanting their cake and eating it has a certain justification.

 

[8115]

some bi people do the 'respectable heterosexual family person' thing overtly and have secret gay liaisons - the criticism of wanting their cake and eating it has a certain justification.

Unlike straight and gay people, who are never unfaithful

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Unlike straight and gay people, who are never unfaithful

indeed.

and if they (for some reason, several tory MPs are coming to mind here) do the 'respectable family man' thing in public and shag around on the side, they also deserve a certain amount of criticism...

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Unlike straight and gay people, who are never unfaithful

You beat me to it.

Unfaithfulness is the same whoever is involved of course, but perhaps one element of the 'having cake and eating it' angle is precisely because of the fact that the two sexual partners are different genders, whereas this wouldn't be an issue in the same way for a man having the same sexual liaisons with two women.

 

[8115]

You beat me to it.

Unfaithfulness is the same whoever is involved of course, but perhaps one element of the 'having cake and eating it' angle is precisely because of the fact that the two sexual partners are different genders, whereas this wouldn't be an issue in the same way for a man having the same sexual liaisons with two women.

I would disagree personally, I think that kind of "having your cake and eating it" perspective on bisexuality is offensive and implies that people ought to choose. I believe in equal ops infidelity!

But that's not what this thread is about.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I would disagree personally, I think that kind of "having your cake and eating it" perspective on bisexuality is offensive and implies that people ought to choose. I believe in equal ops infidelity!

But that's not what this thread is about.

Fair enough. I think the point you raised undoubtedly also comes into play, as some people do view bisexuality as fence sitting and that 'they should decide'. People should be free to fuck who they like!

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I would disagree personally, I think that kind of "having your cake and eating it" perspective on bisexuality is offensive and implies that people ought to choose. I believe in equal ops infidelity!

But that's not what this thread is about.

No, there is a difference.

And I'm not saying people ought to choose one or the other. I've no objection to people being bi, or having multiple relationships so long as they are honest about it with all concerned. And I'd argue that a heck of a lot more people (both who identify as straight and gay) are bi than will admit it.

If a (closet) bi guy is on the one hand sheltering behind 'family values' and all its homophobic baggage, pretending they are somehow superior to 'those gays' while sneaking out and having clandestine gay relationships, I think that is hypocricy of a fairly high order.

 

[revol68]

I perceive them as being very different because gay pride is rooted in anti-oppression, and nationalism isn't.

Yeah, who has ever heard of a nationalist claiming their nation is oppressed... christ.

 

[frogwoman]

nice one was hoping you'd reply to this thread, as i got the impression this was something you know a bit about revol68