bA

The last couple days have seen a lot of writing, specific to the arguments regarding gay conservatives, and the vast differences in a clear binary of competing political perspectives. Some of the points central to the following piece are the specific frameworks and building blocks in what are common ways of referencing real, and demonstrated examples of oppression in daily life. That is a concept I am convinced that gay conservatives could benefit from. As denying your own experience is considered a largely unhealthy dynamic, specific to several cognitive pathologies.

More to that point, I'll attempt to outline how an end goal of an earned acceptance, is a very troubling dynamic for cultures with high examples of individual and group specific oppression. One thing I have always experienced as a very annoying, headache inducing level of frustration, is the dynamic where gay conservatives would rather swallow razor blades than simply admit that in some cases, the liberal and societally empathetic ideas around certain kinds of "victim experience" are in fact very authentic ones, with demonstrated example in the lives of those oppressed on a basis of group identity.

Today's common mantra of post gay ideology, is that organized gay liberation in today's world, is a somewhat outdated and antiquated concept. In effect, collective responses to oppression have ceased to matter, or be effective. In this article I will demonstrate why such a movement can be effective, and why today, it matters more than ever.

I, like many other gay men do not know an existence that is marred in any real way by a manifestation of gay oppression. My career, housing, educational advancements, and many other things, not the least of which would be my personal safety, have never been challenged due to my orientation. But let's examine the reality of the "fem" guy, who may be harassed for simply walking down the street. Or the woman who is defined by, thus devalued over, the size of her breasts. Perhaps the woman who affects a less than traditional female deportment. Some may view these examples as small or petty, but it isn't your voice being silenced with "nice tits" is it?

Though the reality of gay oppression is that no matter how perfectly executed your "straight acting" abilities are, God forbid you walk out of a bar and come face to face with six baseball bats in the hands of six adrenalin ramped teenagers. Your "straight acting" abilities will mean very little. Gay oppression may not be my or your reality today, but you can bet it is for many, many people.    

Reflecting on the history of the movement, the early structure of gay liberation took shape via two of the most influential movements in history. The focus on group resolve, non violent civil disobedience, symbolic protest, and a highly visible presence, was garnered directly from the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s.   

However the theory which informed our philosophy, and provided a historical context in which to view gay oppression, was the same one that informed the radical feminist movement. This subset of feminist ideology challenged the contention that gender roles are always biological, and that the assumption of such belief served to place men above women in power structure, as well as social and sexual currency.The idea being, a positive biologic attribute among men (objective physical strength) was seen as inherent justification for the limitations assigned to women, since somehow women were lacking attribute, or more commonly, the lack of attribute implied deficient.

Radical feminism proposed that gay oppression be viewed in the same context, as a popular theory of the day was the belief that gender roles, specifically pathology of, was in and of itself related to a homosexual orientation. Radical feminism asserted that gender identity and sexual orientation were ultimately very separate mechanisms. The clear analogy between mans attempt to regulate female sexuality, and the inherent fear of not controlling it, is the same dynamic that attempts to regulate gay sexuality. Both identities, a gay one, as well as a self actualized female one, directly challenge the inherent belief structure, social construct, and worth of attribute arguments central to a dominant patriarchal structure.

When the gay liberation movement was in its early years, it had a very simple and well articulated goal. Perhaps getting back to the truth which defined it, is necessary. A truth in it's most stripped down form, is simply about our civil rights. The idea that we hold as a value, an unfettered right to love whom and how we choose, without a dictating, controlling, or limiting hand. I imagine that is a goal most would support.

So it is with the above in mind, identification as a gay Republican for example, confuses me, as I see it as pandering, selling out. However those are my own political beliefs, and should not automatically be the mantra of a collective gay community on the basis of its "progressive" attributes. The rights of gay republicans, gay hairdressers, sports players, and every other variety of gay person are equal under the constitution. It is our own community where the equality line begins to blur.

Individual decisions are, by design, fully and totally autonomous. This is a hallmark and unifying principle, and all of our freedoms in this country are built upon it. It must be afforded as much respect as any other fundamental right we realize at our core. The grounding philosophy in gay liberation was always based on perusing a goal of equality within greater society. Like most social movements, theory and practice, at some point will deviate.   

Enter the concept of assimilation. Although some may call it strategy, assimilation in so far as “being just like them” does not work. Many times the idea of an on par existence to greater society, is at the core of unease present in those who wish to deny rights to gays and lesbians. Assimilation with the end goal of an earned acceptance, serves to be a divisive factor in any progressive movement. It presumes the want of acceptance is based upon a valid and legitimate societal denial of that acceptance. Without directly challenging the legitimacy of the denial, it effectively says that gays need to "prove their worth".

Historically, that has been a problem with the African American movement, the women's movement, and virtually every other minority movement in this countries history. Part of the reason the women's movement and the civil rights movement have seen the moderate success they have, has resulted from addressing that problem. Specific effectiveness occurred only when the movements operated from the premise that their fundamental rights are immutable, not something to be "earned".  

The reality of most gays and lesbians is, and always has been, that the majority of us are average citizens, whom most straight individuals would have no clue what our sexual orientation was, unless we specifically told them. That may be the reality, however the following is the seminal point many seem to have forgotten. “Passing” is not an attribute that defines a gay persons worth, nor is it a marker of “better than”.

What is concerning today, is that many from our community seem to have adopted the belief that our exclusion from aspects of life we aspire to, is a result of stereotypical or “bad" behavior on the part of some gay people. This thesis is flawed in several aspects. Certainly behaviors occur that are destructive, and I refer to mainly the gay male community, as the women, like usual, seem to have quite a heads up in relational ability.   

Though as destructive as some behavior can be, it is a very misinformed analogy when the lack of human rights advances are placed on the shoulders of those not in the "mainstream".  Fundamental justice principles view rights in an individual, not a collective perspective. That to is how they are written, litigated  and decided. At least in theory.   

Can behavior support and encourage cultural insensitivity and stereotype? Of course. But again, that is a price we pay for having the right to live a life free from prosecution on a basis of personal deportment. Whatever some individual gay men and women do or don’t do, is not inherently tied into cultural worth. There will always be stereotypes. Because stereotypes exist for a reason. And there is nothing inherently wrong with the gay stereotype of an effeminate man or a butch woman. They may at times seem limiting, and they may have been a historical root of much bigotry and assumption, but the response to those false beliefs, is one that defines liberalism for me.The idea that those images and stereotypes need to be defended and protected on a stronger scaler, never sold down the river.

For whatever reason, there will always be those in any community who are not mainstream, who theoretically could not exist in mainstream society. We see that in elements of the gay community, as well as every other attribute focused community. It is exactly for such reasons, we must have a strong united movement. If not by issue, then by principle.

Because when most of us exist along with regular culture day in day out, resentment often builds slowly to those “stereotypical” gays. It becomes easier and easier to marginalize and separate, and soon it becomes an exacting demonstration of a dynamic which those who now embrace, once had been committed to fighting against. This is the most damaging thing we can do as people from a community with a history of oppression. Since it effectively legitimizes the oppression, thus feeding off an identical framework.   

"They aren’t like us, therefore they are less than". That mindset demonstrates the following:

A denial of access based on a flawed and subjective assignment of what confers a right to access.

That is key, as it is one of the hallmarks of all forms of minority discrimination in this country. It was the wrong equation then, it is the wrong equation in 2007, and it will always be the wrong equation in the eyes of people who truly understand, support, and demand equality.