Straight Pride Parade

[TheGodlessUtopian]

http://www.queerty.com/what-does-a-straight-pride-parade-look-like-ask-sao-paulo-20110803/

...you have got to be fucking kidding me! *barfs*

[gendoikari]

http://www.queerty.com/what-does-a-straight-pride-parade-look-like-ask-sao-paulo-20110803/

...you have got to be fucking kidding me! *barfs*

You know as I read the title I wanted to support it, you know, support one, you have to support the other and all that crap. But no, it had to be a homophobic parade rubbing sand in the face of the gay community. For once people can we have a straight pride parade or a white pride day, and it JUST be about having pride in who you are and NOT be a slur against the minority? please? Can we have any fairness at all? Any?

[Nox]

The city of Soa Paulo just voted to hold Straight Pride (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2011/08/camara-de-sp-aprova-dia-do-orgulho-hetero.html) on the third Sunday in December, as “one way to speak out against ‘excesses and privileges’ of the gay community—nevermind that Sao Paulo continues to discriminate against queers year round.



‘excesses and privileges’

Really? Does having a lower-level-of-discrimination-than-before-but-still-alot-of-discrimination count as an 'excess' or a 'privilege'?

[OhYesIdid]

http://www.newwaveinstruments.com/humor/misc/computer_grief_images/computer_grief.gif

[Nox]

I stopped taking it seriously when I read the word "straight", which is in my opinion a term for non-homosexual people which is derogatory towards homosexual people. It implies that non-homosexual people are 'normal' or 'following the right path', and thus saying that homosexual people are 'not normal' or 'following the wrong path'

[AnonymousOne]

Sigh, I've never understood the need of those with privilege to wave the fact that they have privilege in the faces of those without privilege.

Also, this is pretty much the equivalent of white pride for LGBTQ+ individuals.

[Tenka]

You know as I read the title I wanted to support it, you know, support one, you have to support the other and all that crap. But no, it had to be a homophobic parade rubbing sand in the face of the gay community. For once people can we have a straight pride parade or a white pride day, and it JUST be about having pride in who you are and NOT be a slur against the minority? please? Can we have any fairness at all? Any?
What is there to be proud of? Really, I don't even think gay pride parades are (or should be) about pride as such, but rather are an exclamation of defiance in the face of all-pervading patriarchal heteronormativity. Heterosexuals cannot really articulate such a thing except in complete solidarity with Homosexuals, so straight pride parades are just reactionary rubbish.

[Octavian]

I feel that the sooner every one moves away from pride we can all treat our differences like sexuality and race as things beyond our control and let them slip away into characteristics that don't define us.

[∞]

So its illegal for straight people to marry now?

[not your usual suspect]

You know as I read the title I wanted to support it, you know, support one, you have to support the other and all that crap. But no, it had to be a homophobic parade rubbing sand in the face of the gay community. For once people can we have a straight pride parade or a white pride day, and it JUST be about having pride in who you are and NOT be a slur against the minority? please? Can we have any fairness at all? Any?
Actually just because you support Gay Pride does not mean you have to support "Straight Pride". One is an attempt to show the world that being gay is not wrong. The other is just silly, because the world already knows that being straight is not wrong. Pride in this context is used to say, "we are not wrong, we have a right to exist, we do exist, and there is nothing you can do about it!"
"Straight pride" doesn't make any sense with that meaning, and so the only meaning "straight pride" could have is against gay pride! "Straight pride" means anti-gay, by definition.
The same goes for any other sort of pride that is done by the non-oppressed. "White pride", "man pride" or similar. Fuck all that shit.

[gendoikari]

What is there to be proud of? Really, I don't even think gay pride parades are (or should be) about pride as such, but rather are an exclamation of defiance in the face of all-pervading patriarchal heteronormativity. Heterosexuals cannot really articulate such a thing except in complete solidarity with Homosexuals, so straight pride parades are just reactionary rubbish.

Then they should call them what they are, gay rights parades. Because to have a gay pride parade and then turn around and tell non homosexuals they can't have a "straight pride" parade, that's hypocritical.... until they make the straight pride parade about demeaning homosexuals.

[AnonymousOne]

Then they should call them what they are, gay rights parades. Because to have a gay pride parade and then turn around and tell non homosexuals they can't have a "straight pride" parade, that's hypocritical.... until they make the straight pride parade about demeaning homosexuals.

No. It's not hypocritical. Unless you believe of course that if there is a black pride event, no one should complain if a white pride event is hosted later. The difference between the two, a LGBTQ+ pride parade and a straight pride parade has to deal with their role and satus within society.

The purpose of LGBTQ+ isn't to say that LGBTQ+ people are better than straight people, but rather they exist to empower and inspire LGBTQ+ people to be active and fight for their rights. It's to challenge the assumption, which is pervasive across the world, that being LGBTQ+ is sinful, shameful and wrong. Instead of believing in that, the LGBTQ+ pride event is a means to show LGBTQ+ people that they shouldn't feel any of those things, that they can have pride in who they are as people.

Where as a straight pride parade is a sick and twisted parody of the LGBTQ+ struggle for liberation. Straight pride, by it's very nature makes it a reactionary attempt to fight LGBTQ+ people.

Of course, the organizers of Straight Pride and those that decide to participate should have the freedom to do so, but I and I hope most people on this board will fight it in the same way we'd fight a White Pride or White Power event.

[Mac]

I don't get freaking homophobes. Just because what gays do may seem different to them doesn't mean they should go around hatin' on 'em.

[gendoikari]

No. It's not hypocritical. Unless you believe of course that if there is a black pride event, no one should complain if a white pride event is hosted later. The difference between the two, a LGBTQ+ pride parade and a straight pride parade has to deal with their role and satus within society.

The purpose of LGBTQ+ isn't to say that LGBTQ+ people are better than straight people, but rather they exist to empower and inspire LGBTQ+ people to be active and fight for their rights. It's to challenge the assumption, which is pervasive across the world, that being LGBTQ+ is sinful, shameful and wrong. Instead of believing in that, the LGBTQ+ pride event is a means to show LGBTQ+ people that they shouldn't feel any of those things, that they can have pride in who they are as people.

Where as a straight pride parade is a sick and twisted parody of the LGBTQ+ struggle for liberation. Straight pride, by it's very nature makes it a reactionary attempt to fight LGBTQ+ people.

Of course, the organizers of Straight Pride and those that decide to participate should have the freedom to do so, but I and I hope most people on this board will fight it in the same way we'd fight a White Pride or White Power event.

okay that's not a gay pride parade that's a gay RIGHTS parade. There is no point in a straight rights parade. You are correct about that. But what you allow one section of society to do you MUST allow the others. If you have a black pride parade you must allow for the white pride parade in as much equal measure as the other. Simply because one is a minority group does not give them more of a right to an action than the other.

Now when the majority uses that privilege, and creates a mirror action, that is specifically intended to put the other side down. THAT is a different story. They, like the story above do NOT have the right to do that. But the are allowed an equal measure.

[Thirsty Crow]

In fact, I was wondering when, and if, would the argument "why do you have to rub it into our noses it's your private thing" morph into an actual organization of a march which mocks LGBTQ pride marches.
It seems that these deluded people think that one of the "privileges" of the LGBTQ communities is to hold a rally or a pride march, so they want to level the field and show they can march too, 'cause they don't want to be "underprivileged".
In all honesty, this doesn't seem good since it represents a kind of an evolution of anti-LGBTQ sentiment, and its channeling into more organized forms. It would be great if folks from the LGBTQ community would show up to confirm that thay are "straight" too.

[Tim Finnegan]

I stopped taking it seriously when I read the word "straight", which is in my opinion a term for non-homosexual people which is derogatory towards homosexual people. It implies that non-homosexual people are 'normal' or 'following the right path', and thus saying that homosexual people are 'not normal' or 'following the wrong path'
It's an inherited Victorian euphemism, nobody actually uses it like that who wouldn't already use "heterosexual" like that to start with. There's language politics, and then there's word games.

[AnonymousOne]

okay that's not a gay pride parade that's a gay RIGHTS parade. There is no point in a straight rights parade.

No. It's a gay pride parade, because we're reaffirming ourselves and our identity which is constantly under attack across the world. We're not campaigning for marriage etc. with a gay pride parade, we're defending our identity and legitimacy. You could perhaps, compare it to the Black is Beautiful movement. We're fighting the idea that being Gay is something to be ashamed of.


But what you allow one section of society to do you MUST allow the others. If you have a black pride parade you must allow for the white pride parade in as much equal measure as the other. Simply because one is a minority group does not give them more of a right to an action than the other.

No, it definitely does because of the different intents. The Gay Pride event is simply an attempt fight against stigma and highlight that gay people should not be ashamed for who they are. The straight pride parade can not be doing that, as there is no stigma against the straight identity.

That doesn't mean, as I pointed out in the above they should be forced to stop, but we should as revolutionary leftists fight against those that would seek to parody and twist the LGBTQ+ pride movement.




Now when the majority uses that privilege, and creates a mirror action, that is specifically intended to put the other side down. THAT is a different story. They, like the story above do NOT have the right to do that. But the are allowed an equal measure.


Don't you see that it's obviously the case in this situation?

[gendoikari]

In fact, I was wondering when, and if, would the argument "why do you have to rub it into our noses it's your private thing" morph into an actual organization of a march which mocks LGBTQ pride marches.
It seems that these deluded people think that one of the "privileges" of the LGBTQ communities is to hold a rally or a pride march, so they want to level the field and show they can march too, 'cause they don't want to be "underprivileged".
In all honesty, this doesn't seem good since it represents a kind of an evolution of anti-LGBTQ sentiment, and its channeling into more organized forms. It would be great if folks from the LGBTQ community would show up to confirm that thay are "straight" too.

The fact that the LGBTQ, HAVE To hold these rights rallys/paradesis is kind of point to the fact that they are discriminated against (I.e. Underprivileged) and repressed (I.E. Kind of the opposite of excessive)

about that last part, do you mean Striaght people coming out in support of LGBTQ? If so I agree. But I'd also like to see a movement that espouses just civil rights for anyone in general, basically if you ain't hurting anyone, then no one should say anything.

[Thirsty Crow]

The fact that the LGBTQ, HAVE To hold these rights rallys/paradesis is kind of point to the fact that they are discriminated against (I.e. Underprivileged) and repressed (I.E. Kind of the opposite of excessive)Why do I sense a tone of someone preaching to another member of the board who is very much in the know with regard to LGBTQ pride marches (and has attended them)?


about that last part, do you mean Striaght people coming out in support of LGBTQ? If so I agree. But I'd also like to see a movement that espouses just civil rights for anyone in general, basically if you ain't hurting anyone, then no one should say anything.
No, I mean LGBTQ counter rally or simply people showing up individually affirming the utterly reactionary character, aimed at retaining structural discrimination, of the "straight" pride.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Oddly enough, being straight and being LGBT are not mutually exclusive if you think about the fact that many trans folks identify as straight. I don't as I am very bisexual but I needed to point that out

[gendoikari]

No. It's a gay pride parade, because we're reaffirming ourselves and our identity which is constantly under attack across the world. We're not campaigning for marriage etc. with a gay pride parade, we're defending our identity and legitimacy. You could perhaps, compare it to the Black is Beautiful movement. We're fighting the idea that being Gay is something to be ashamed of.



No, it definitely does because of the different intents. The Gay Pride event is simply an attempt fight against stigma and highlight that gay people should not be ashamed for who they are. The straight pride parade can not be doing that, as there is no stigma against the straight identity.

That doesn't mean, as I pointed out in the above they should be forced to stop, but we should as revolutionary leftists fight against those that would seek to parody and twist the LGBTQ+ pride movement.




Don't you see that it's obviously the case in this situation?

In this situation, YES. Which is why it is wrong. In fact I can guess that MOST straight pride parades are going to be the same thing, possible all of them. However to say that ALL of them are wrong is hypocritical, because there belies the possibility that there is one that is exactly for the same reasons. Pride in who you are. Does that mean there will ever BE one that is fair? No. Just because the Straight community isn't under attack doesn't mean they don't have a right to be proud of who they are. Just because MOST or all of them are slanders against the gay commnuity, doesn't mean the concept itself is wrong.


Do you get what i'm saying? Intent matters, and a stright pride parades intent is not definitionally a slur against the gay community. Even if 99.999999999999999999% of them are made for that reason.

[Tenka]

okay that's not a gay pride parade that's a gay RIGHTS parade. There is no point in a straight rights parade. You are correct about that. But what you allow one section of society to do you MUST allow the others. If you have a black pride parade you must allow for the white pride parade in as much equal measure as the other. Simply because one is a minority group does not give them more of a right to an action than the other.

What AnonymousOne described is exactly what is known as a "Gay Pride Parade". Pride is probably a misnomer, but here we are just arguing semantics. A "Straight Pride Parade" can exist in no context but in antagonistic relation to "Gay Pride Parades"; likewise, we aim for a future wherein "Gay Pride Parades" will be meaningless relics of a dirty, bigoted past which called them into being.
Black people also face systematic inequality today, to say the least, and this is reason enough for their "pride" parades should they choose to have them; the privileged whites cannot respond in kind -- will have no inclination to respond in kind -- without either being quite racist or quite ignorant.

Edit: To clarify further, I don't think gay pride parades are even about "pride" as such. They didn't come into being because we were proud of who we are, but rather because everyone wanted us to be ashamed of it.

[Forward Union]

Ok so this is clearly something set up by Homophobes.

But to be honest, the Gay community could score some serious political points if they get completely behind this, and support it to the full. Loads of straight people go on Gay Pride marches to show their support for the underlying message and to have a good time. If Gay rights organisations were to show public support for this, along the lines of "yea we can all be proud of who we are, right?" then any underlying homophobia in the march would be completely sabotaged. At least in terms of PR.

Could add a completely ironic fuck off , and release public statements condemning the widespread victimisation of straight people in the work place as well as the local community. It has to stop.

[gendoikari]

Edit: To clarify further, I don't think gay pride parades are even about "pride" as such. They didn't come into being because we were proud of who we are, but rather because everyone wanted us to be ashamed of it.

okay that's a different matter of semantics then. That's in a way fighting for civil rights, to not be discriminated against. and as such, there really is no straight counterpoint as they aren't really discriminated against.

But my point still stand, what you allow for one, you have to allow for the other in exact equal measure. I just happens that straights don't have an equal measure.

[AnonymousOne]

That's in a way fighting for civil rights,

Civil rights, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Civil rights: Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments

[Forward Union]

Civil rights, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Civil rights: Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments

Urr no, I think that's what gay pride marches are. They are protests against cultural, but also political discrimination. Homosexuals are still not allowed to donate blood in the UK, a law which has absolutely no basis in reality, and is incredibly discriminatory. They are referred to as "pride marches" in opposition to the general homophobic attitude that they ought to be ashamed of their sexuality. It has, over time, worked.

Of course being "proud" of ones sexuality doesn't make complete sense in pure philosophical terms, but as a political statement in opposition to victimisation, it does make sense. Straight pride is a completely different phenomena, and has no progressive value.

[AnonymousOne]

They are referred to as "pride marches" in opposition to the general homophobic attitude that they ought to be ashamed of their sexuality. It has, over time, worked.

Of course being "proud" of ones sexuality doesn't make complete sense in pure philosophical terms, but as a political statement in opposition to victimisation, it does make sense. Straight pride is a completely different phenomena, and has no progressive value.

They're primarily cultural nature, and as such they do have broader impacts on civil rights, but they are primarily used to fight homophobic attitudes in society not campaign for specific issues.

I don't think anyone is actually proud of their sexuality at a gay pride event, it's more a way of saying, "Fuck you, I'm not ashamed of who I am. If you're gay, you also shouldn't be ashamed."

We both agree that straight pride doesn't make any sense, as I've repeated several times in this thread.

[Forward Union]

I'm pretty much completely with you on this, but most of the organisations on Gay pride marches do have explicit political aims. So I wouldn't divorce them from Civil Rights completely, even if, as they have won more and more rights over the years, this has become a slightly reduced issue, in some parts of the world.

[GX.]

In this situation, YES. Which is why it is wrong. In fact I can guess that MOST straight pride parades are going to be the same thing, possible all of them. However to say that ALL of them are wrong is hypocritical, because there belies the possibility that there is one that is exactly for the same reasons. Pride in who you are. Does that mean there will ever BE one that is fair? No. Just because the Straight community isn't under attack doesn't mean they don't have a right to be proud of who they are. Just because MOST or all of them are slanders against the gay commnuity, doesn't mean the concept itself is wrong.


Do you get what i'm saying? Intent matters, and a stright pride parades intent is not definitionally a slur against the gay community. Even if 99.999999999999999999% of them are made for that reason.
The reason people have to reaffirm their identity, say in the form of big public gatherings, is if it's being threatened or called into question. The underlying narrative in white pride, nativist, straight pride events etc. is that the (privileged) status of these groups are being threatened by poc, immigrants, queer people etc. In this case the implication is that the lgbt community are mobilizing "excesses and privilege" to the detriment of straight people. So no, I don't think it is at all likely to have a "straight pride" parade that at base isn't intolerant. Because the context of these events is always one of re-intrenching privilege against perceived threats against it (the very definition of reactionary). Outside of that context, explicitly celebrating the fact that you're het is pretty pointless. It would be like having a celebration for people who like to wear shoes or drive cars or whatever. Straight people already put their sexuality on display in public, all the time, and it isn't questioned any more than driving a car or wearing shoes.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ignoring that this is going to be a colossal train wreck of reactionary fail, what the hell would a straight pride parade even look like? I'm guessing it'll be boring as fuck.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ignoring that this is going to be a colossal train wreck of reactionary fail, what the hell would a straight pride parade even look like? I'm guessing it'll be boring as fuck.
Probably full of fratboys.

[Chaumette]

This is terrible news. I'm disappointed.

[Forward Union]

Ignoring that this is going to be a colossal train wreck of reactionary fail, what the hell would a straight pride parade even look like? I'm guessing it'll be boring as fuck.

I can't imagine the music.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sigh, I've never understood the need of those with privilege to wave the fact that they have privilege in the faces of those without privilege.

Also, this is pretty much the equivalent of white pride for LGBTQ+ individuals.

They're not privileged, they just aren't subject to a specific oppression. In fact it's their perception that their heterosexuality is a privileged position which convinces them that LGBT equal rights (let alone liberation) will somehow dis-advantage or dis-privilege them.

If heterosexuals were really privileged or favored rather than homosexuality being repressed and LGBT people being oppressed, then High Schools would actually teach people about heterosexual sex rather than abstinence, the mainstream wouldn't try and convince women that the point of intercourse is pleasing your partner and not yourself as well, pre-marital sex wouldn't be a big deal and divorce and birth control would be more accessible and acceptable.

The repression of homosexuality obviously targets and hurts LGBT people the most, but it is also part of a program of repressing all non-reproductive sex, promoting conformity to certain norms that are not even inherent in homosexual relationships, enforcing the importance of gender-roles and the nuclear family and so on. All workers would benefit from LGBT liberation and in my opinion, LGBT liberation would spill over into a more general sexual liberation.

But yeah, this shit in the OP is fucked-up and just plain bigotry. "Straight Pride" only means "LGBT Shame". It's an attempt to put non-heterosexuals "in their place".

[AnonymousOne]

They're not privileged, they just aren't subject to a specific oppression. In fact it's their perception that their heterosexuality is a privileged position which convinces them that LGBT equal rights (let alone liberation) will somehow dis-advantage or dis-privilege them.

If that's how we define privlege, than there is no such thing as white privlege. There are certain benefits that you get being a member of a particular group, compared to other people outside the group. Society is very heteronormative, that is heterosexuality is normal/good/assumed etc. and several privleges extend from that view.

Below is a list containing several examples of heterosexual privilege.

On a daily basis as a straight person…



I can be pretty sure that my roomate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.
When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE fag tag or smear the queer).
I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.
I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.
People don't ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.
People don't ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.
I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family. It's assumed.
My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.
People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.
I don't have to defend my heterosexuality.
I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.
I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.
I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.
Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.
I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.
I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.
If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.
Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.
I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in my workplace.
I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.
I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
I can go for months without being called straight.
I'm not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.
People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.
I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in the cafeteria without being watched and stared at.
Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.
People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE "straight as an arrow", "standing up straight" or "straightened out" ) instead of demeaning terms (IE "ewww, that's gay" or being "queer" ) .
I am not asked to think about why I am straight.
I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.

[CHE with an AK]

Also, this is pretty much the equivalent of white pride for LGBTQ+ individuals.
I agree, and find the event absurd.

AnonymousOne, I know that some members of the gay community find the word "straight" offensive, do you? I would assume it could be as it implies that gays are "crooked", "bent" etc i.e. not a "straight" line. However, I also know that one being a "square" is seen as nerdy, and thus maybe being "straight" could be as well?

Also, what word do you believe is the most neutral for people who are only sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender?

I am genuinely curious, and may not be "up-to-date" on the accepted terminology in the revolutionary leftist gay community? For instance, is "gay" seen as better than using "homosexual" or "queer"? "Queer" to me sounds offensive, but I am not sure if it is.

Educate me a little and give me the full run down terminology wise if you would, please. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

If that's how we define privlege, than there is no such thing as white privlege. There are certain benefits that you get being a member of a particular group, compared to other people outside the group. Society is very heteronormative, that is heterosexuality is normal/good/assumed etc. and several privleges extend from that view.

Yeah, there's no white privilage either - there's definitely oppression of black people and Arabs and Latinos and systemic racism, but being able to drive down the road without being pulled over and having your citizenship or parole status questioned is called not having the supposed rights we are supposed to have trampled on.


Below is a list containing several examples of heterosexual privilege.

On a daily basis as a straight person…
How is that heterosexual privilege and not oppression of non-heterosexuals?

"Privilege theory" is an academic racket that does not help us understand or fight oppression IMO. Further, the cruder versions of these arguments suggest that the "privileged" groups DO have a stake in maintaining oppression in society.

[gendoikari]

It would be like having a celebration for people who like to wear shoes or drive cars or whatever.

people already do this, and more, and yeah they're pretty pointless but they exist. They don't usually come in the form of rallys, though but rather conventions. That being said the parallel between say a video game convention and a "straight" pride parade would be hard to draw as at game conventions or car conventions your going there to have a good time and enjoy what the con is about. or see cool cars you'd never otherwise get to see. What would you do at a straight pride parade that wasn't homophobic?... I don't know, and I don't think it could be shown on TV if it existed. which is kinda why a straight pride parade, that isn't homophobic really is a theoretical.

[AnonymousOne]

I agree, and find the event absurd.

AnonymousOne, I know that some members of the gay community find the word "straight" offensive, do you? I would assume it could be as it implies that gays are "crooked", "bent" etc i.e. not a "straight" line. However, I also know that one being a "square" is seen as nerdy, and thus maybe being "straight" could be as well?

Also, what word do you believe is the most neutral for people who are only sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender?

I am genuinely curious, and may not be "up-to-date" on the accepted terminology in the revolutionary leftist gay community? For instance, is "gay" seen as better than using "homosexual" or "queer"? "Queer" to me sounds offensive, but I am not sure if it is.

Educate me a little and give me the full run down terminology wise if you would, please. :)

It depends on the person. I try to avoid straight, unless the term has already been used in a conversation, in which case for the sake of coherency I'll use it as well. Plus it's easier to say than saying "heterosexual" especially when you're conversing on gender identity/sexuality. But once again that's personal preference, and other people take more/less offense.

Gay or queer (to me, everyone is different) are prefectly acceptable ways of referring to someone who is solely interested in same-sex relations. I really only care about intent/meaning of the term, if you mean queer as an insult, I'll take it how it's intended. I'll use gay, unless I'm talking in an academic or formal context simply because it's easier to say and everyone knows what is meant, plus you're not going ove people's heads etc.

Queer does have stigma attached to it, so be careful when using that as not everyone will have the same understanding of it. So I'd probably avoid using that unless you know the person you're speaking with is comfortable with that term.

For the community at large I use LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and more) because it's inclusive but not too wordy. I suppose to be fully open/welcoming I would use LGBTQIIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, and more) but that gets to be a bit of a hassle to say and write out. Other people have different acronyms etc. More personal preference, but just LGBT is fine in most contexts but it's "better" to use LGBTQ+ or other longer acronyms to show that you want to be inclusive.



How is that heterosexual privilege and not oppression of non-heterosexuals?.

Because Heterosexism just like racism creates a sexual identity hierarchy which defines different acts and identities as morally good and morally bad. With things approaching heterosexism as better than other behaviors, with heterosexism sitting at the top of the hierarchy.

If you want to claim that, being at the top of a hierarchial system isn't privlege, I really don't know if we can continue conversing.

[gendoikari]

I'm not even gay, and i find "straight" a little offensive, it does have the connotation as someone pointed out that homosexuals are "crooked" or "bent" but then again it is easier to say and type than heterosexual. A solution to this does need to be found.


I suppose to be fully open/welcoming I would use LGBTQIIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, and more)

... hold the phone, asexual is an option. I might have to look into this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Because Heterosexism just like racism creates a sexual identity hierarchy which defines different acts and identities as morally good and morally bad.I think a lot of white workers have been bamboozled into thinking that black rights hurt white people's status, but what did jim-crow cause? Lower wages than in the north for black and white workers... poll taxes and voting restrictions aimed at and hurting mostly black people also lead to the dienfranchizement of poor white workers in rural areas. Now a lot of bigots think that tax cuts for the rich and stopping "welfare entitlements" to the mythical black "welfare queens" helps white workers... what did it get white workers in reality? It got them an end to welfare (a program used by more whites than blacks) and a police state that chooses oppressing blacks over educating whites (obviously not to mention blacks or Latinos or native Americans)! Oppression is a tool of divide and rule for the ruling class and ALL workers are in a stronger position to fight back or just to live free-er lives by fighting oppression.


If you want to claim that, being at the top of a hierarchical system isn't privilege, I really don't know if we can continue conversing.Are ALL heterosexuals on the top of this society? How does sexual hierarchy work - do gays benifit from gay privilage since transgendered people are more oppressed? How do straight women benefit from homophobia - in fact I think sexism and homophobia go hand in hand and reinforce each other.

If you think working class people from non-oppressed groups have and interest in maintaining oppression, then frankly, why are conversing with radical anarchists and socialists who want the working class to run society? You are essentially agreeing with the right-wing that LGBT marriage hurts heterosexuals, that black civil rights hurt white workers... except agreeing from the opposite direction. Worker's of the world... COMPETE!

These politics frankly will not help end oppression because they are more concerned with non-oppression than ending systemic oppression in capitalist societies. Personally my view of this privilege theory is that it is a way for academics to address oppression without having to propose systemic challenges to it... all they offer is for the non-oppressed to "recognize" and "check" their privilege... in other words discuss, but don't do anything about oppression. It's a faddish theory right now that is very pervasive, but I think as struggle picks up and people realize that you can and should fight not just the oppression facing you, but all oppression of ethnic and sexual minorities, people will be more focused on ending oppression than thinking about the ways in which they are privileged or not privileged.

[AnonymousOne]

If you think working class people from non-oppressed groups have and interest in maintaining oppression, then frankly, why are conversing with radical anarchists and socialists who want the working class to run society? You are essentially agreeing with the right-wing that LGBT marriage hurts heterosexuals, that black civil rights hurt white workers except from the opposite direction. Worker's of the world... COMPETE!

wut

How is opposing hierarchy a bad thing exactly? It's not my fault that's the way the world is, and if you're going to argue that no such hierarchy exists than I really can't converse with you because we're both on different planets.

If you somehow think that fighting against heterosexism and heteronormativity are the opposite of uniting the workers, you're being silly. Fighting for equality, and against homophobia and heterosexism is something that unites the working class.

I also never said there was any interest or benefit of oppressing LGBTQ+ people, my only claim was that there is a benefit to heterosexuals because they are on the top of a hierarchy. That's a benefit, or a positive thing. There is a benefit, or privlege to being the norm, the only way that privlege can exist is if other groups are not the norm. That's the root of heterosexual privlege.

The goal of privlege theory is to highlight inequality and oppression by exposing taboo hierarchies which can then be fought against. It highlights injustice, by thinking in terms of benefits gained by members that are higher up on the hierarchy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How is opposing hierarchy a bad thing exactly?Nothings wrong with opposing hierarchy, but if you are a grocery bagger it does no good to blame the higher paid chashier for you getting paid less and having less benifits - in fact, both of you have an interest in uniting against the people who have actually created and maintain the situation; your bosses.


It's not my fault that's the way the world is, and if you're going to argue that no such hierarchy exists than I really can't converse with you because we're both on different planets. I don't argue that inequality doesn't exist or that the extra-oppression of particular groups in society doesn't exist -- my argument is with the framing of it through this particular theory. My argument is that OPPRESSION is very real, that "privilege theory" is not a helpful way to look at the way oppression works in class societies and gives us no concrete ways to fight oppression.


If you somehow think that fighting against heterosexism and heteronormativity are the opposite of uniting the workers, you're being silly. Fighting for equality, and against homophobia and heterosexism is something that unites the working class.That's my argument - that whites have an interest in fighting against black or immigrant oppression even though they do not face the brunt of it - in the long run this oppression only benifits our common class enemies - they people who actually make the jim-crow laws, that actually condone violence against and the subordination of women etc.

My problem with privilage theory is that it actually muddles things, takes the focus off oppression and worries instead about the LACK of oppression. Is the problem that two adult males walking down the street are treated with suspicion or animosity or even threats of violence... or is the problem that a male/female adult couple are not threatened with violence?


I also never said there was any interest or benefit of oppressing LGBTQ+ people, my only claim was that there is a benefit to heterosexuals because they are on the top of a hierarchy.Are they? They are not specifically oppressed for being heterosexual, but are they sexually liberated? What happens if the heterosexual might get pregnant out of wedlock or is in a marriage they don't really want anymore but are pressured to stay in? IMO, there is no inherent "straight norm" to privilage - what's privilaged is conformity to roles assigned to people by the ruling class. Fall out of line and you are no longer "privilaged" out of wedlock?


That's a benefit, or a positive thing. There is a benefit, or privlege to being the norm, the only way that privlege can exist is if other groups are not the norm. That's the root of heterosexual privlege, and it's incredibly chauvinistic and indicative of the problem. Again, look at history - whites in the US south had rights above those of blacks - black people had to let white people pass them, couldn't talk back, etc. Plenty of white people believed that this put them "above" blacks, but jim-crow also increased the power of the planter-class who then had more power to keep poor sharecroppers of white and black backgrounds in poverty, it lead to the disenfranchisement of poor and illiterate whites and blacks, so who REALLY is privilage from jim-crow? Certainty whites didn't face extra-oppression like blacks, no terror and fewer lynchings... but really only the elite ruling whites materially benefited from this system.


The goal of privlege theory is to highlight inequality and oppression by exposing taboo hierarchies which can then be fought against. It highlights injustice, by thinking in terms of benefits gained by members that are higher up on the hierarchy.So to get rid of heterosexual privilage, the goal should be that heterosexuals can't walk down the street without being targeted for violence? That heterosexuals should hide their sexuality or face problems in school or at their job?

For working class people the problem isn't TOO MANY benefits, it's too few. In other words, OPPRESSION, not "privilege and benefits" are the problem. Our goal should be for all workers to be privileged and to me that means taking on oppression and the class that actually benefits from divide and ruling society directly.

[AnonymousOne]

@Jimmie_Higgins

I think we basically agree, I just like using privlege as an analogy or model to reveal where inequality and injustice exists.

But yes, the goal is to remove oppression and not gain privlege over other groups of people. Or in a different way grant those benefits and privleges to others. We both have the same "end" in mind.

Wow, that was civil. :)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If that's how we define privlege, than there is no such thing as white privlege. There are certain benefits that you get being a member of a particular group, compared to other people outside the group. Society is very heteronormative, that is heterosexuality is normal/good/assumed etc. and several privleges extend from that view.

Below is a list containing several examples of heterosexual privilege.

On a daily basis as a straight person…



I can be pretty sure that my roomate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.
When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE fag tag or smear the queer).
I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.
I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.
People don't ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.
People don't ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.
I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family. It's assumed.
My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.
People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.
I don't have to defend my heterosexuality.
I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.
I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.
I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.
Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.
I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.
I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.
If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.
Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.
I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in my workplace.
I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.
I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
I can go for months without being called straight.
I'm not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.
People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.
I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in the cafeteria without being watched and stared at.
Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.
People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE "straight as an arrow", "standing up straight" or "straightened out" ) instead of demeaning terms (IE "ewww, that's gay" or being "queer" ) .
I am not asked to think about why I am straight.
I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.


I feel I to some extent have hetero privilege (even though I'm technically bi but in a relationship with a man) however, I don't have male or cisgender privilege. That's for those of us on the gender portion of LGBT+
I just needed to point out that the list is slightly different for those of us who are trans but there are some similarities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow, that was civil. :)Actually I was worried that the all caps I used would be read as shouting... but really I'm just too lazy to italicize things I want to emphasize. lol

[Fawkes]

There's probably gonna be so much AC/DC playing at this thing.




This is exactly the same as the No Promo Homo shit that's been going on for the last twenty years, to which much of the queer community has responded appropriately with: "um, how come nobody's saying no promo hetero?" Certain members of specific marginalized groups are fighting back and realizing more opportunity, and subsequently are seen as a threat to existing societal structures. Therefore, those most privileged by existing structures seek to repress anybody that is deemed threatening to their position. This is done not only by demonizing the "opposition", but by creating an inflated sense of superiority through things as ludicrous as straight pride parades.

The fact that there even is a straight pride parade is evidence of just how ingrained in our culture heteronormativity has become. So many people both privileged and oppressed by it don't even recognize its existence because of how greatly its infected every aspect of our lives. It's the same as people asking why we don't have White Entertainment Television while being completely ignorant of the often subtle but sometimes overt reaffirmations of racism that occur constantly in everything from magazine advertisements to everyday language.


Anyway, I prefer these mofos:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_l1mDZ5Fds-I/TPwX-XvUP4I/AAAAAAAAAhQ/vhpoHu8Hq9g/s1600/gayshame2.jpg

[Fawkes]

I agree, and find the event absurd.

AnonymousOne, I know that some members of the gay community find the word "straight" offensive, do you? I would assume it could be as it implies that gays are "crooked", "bent" etc i.e. not a "straight" line. However, I also know that one being a "square" is seen as nerdy, and thus maybe being "straight" could be as well?

Also, what word do you believe is the most neutral for people who are only sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender?

I am genuinely curious, and may not be "up-to-date" on the accepted terminology in the revolutionary leftist gay community? For instance, is "gay" seen as better than using "homosexual" or "queer"? "Queer" to me sounds offensive, but I am not sure if it is.

Educate me a little and give me the full run down terminology wise if you would, please. :)

The difference between "gay", "homosexual", and "queer" is that gay and homosexual refer specifically to a sexual orientation. A gay or homosexual person is someone who is sexually attracted exclusively to people of the same sex and/or gender (see, even with supposedly concrete terms there's an ambiguity) as themselves. Of course, in general usage people often leave out the "exclusive" part of the definition. Funny how a straight guy kissing another guy once makes him gay, but a gay guy kissing a girl once does nothing.

A queer person is anyone who lives outside of the realm of heteronormative behavior. Queer is defined as something strange, odd, or different, which is exactly what it describes regarding gender and sex. It's a broad term meant to serve as a unifier between all people that live in opposition to heteronormative constraints.

So, in short, "homosexual"/"gay" denotes a person's sexual attraction to a specific group while "queer" denotes a person's non-adherence to the gender binary.




I definitely suggest checking out some queer theorists writings, particularly anything by Cathy Cohen. A lot of this stuff is filled with jargony bullshit and seems too detached because so much of it originated from grad school classrooms, but a good writer like Cohen brings these seemingly lofty and pretentious ideas down to a really tangible and relatable level. Far better than I ever could. Her essays Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens and What is this Movement Doing to My Politics? are both really great. I was only able to read them cause my school subscribed to some online journal, so I'm not sure what the best way is to find them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The fact that there even is a straight pride parade is evidence of just how ingrained in our culture heteronormativity has become. So many people both privileged and oppressed by it don't even recognize its existence because of how greatly its infected every aspect of our lives. It's the same as people asking why we don't have White Entertainment Television while being completely ignorant of the often subtle but sometimes overt reaffirmations of racism that occur constantly in everything from magazine advertisements to everyday language.This kind of shit is not out of just ignorance and the arrogance of a handful of white or heterosexual pigs. This specific idea of "reverse-oppression" is a calculated effort and a tactic of a larger backlash (what the right calls "culture wars") against the gains of social movements in the recent past (60s and 70s) which is also part of an even larger "one-sided class war" which began in the late 1970s. On the one hand, the ruling class argues that oppression doesn't exist... this works somewhat because our culture is largely segregated and so attacks on immigrants or the poor happen "out of sight" of the mainstream and other people such as homosexuals are forced to "shut-up and be quiet" i.e. closeted which also means regular mistreatment in medical or bureaucratic situations, again, is hidden.

But of course you can make people feel powerless only for so long and you can't completely hide massive and ingrained oppression and mistreatment all the time without someone speaking out or noticing. So, since the ruling class can't completely deny that some blatant inequalities are totally absent, and people will try and fight back or make a ruckus, there is also an effort to sort of create a false equivalency. So the logic is like: "we live in a colorblind/no discriminatory society and, well, sometimes there are abnormal things that happen... like maybe there was that gay-bashing you heard about or a group of racist whites hurled epitaths at some immigrant family and it was taped and put on youtube... well that's bad and of course I don't support that, but you know the opposite is just as true, my brothers cousin's neighbor for example is white and..."

As another example of how organized this is, in California there is a pro-bono law firm that works in two different areas: 1) Suing unions for "forcing workers to join" and giving legal advice on how to remove unions from your workplace 2) suing school districts on behalf of parents to set a legal precedent that homosexual teachers teaching the children of right-wing anti-gay parents is "religious discrimination".

So yeah, this shit is organized.