Class/Social divisions within the gay community.....

[RadioRaheem84]

Hi all and happy new years. This will be my first thread of the new years and I hope to make it a really good one.

One thing that I was always curious about is if there are any divisions within the gay community? It seems that whenever a minority group is on the rise and making gains in civil rights there are always some challenges. Entrance into the mainstream seems to come with a host of presumed norms that other minorities have fallen prey to like the image of the upper middle class family unit in order to appear "normal" in mainstream America. The Huxtables come to mind as they were a positive image on black culture according to white America but it was mostly a class image they were liking. Poor working class minority families are almost always depicted as dysfunctional.

In the midst of the rise of the "pink dollar" is there a gay establishment that has formed by cornering a market niche and using the media to establish a unified gay culture? I am thinking of the theory that Noam Chomsky once said that the market forces usually determine when a minority group is accepted into mainstream society, that it's the business class more so than the political class that decides real social change for minority groups. When racism or homophobia is no longer marketable then it can become accepted or pitched as such.

Last study I read said that most homosexual Americans are not upper middle class professionals, are working class and still in the closet. So what or who determines gay culture?

I would really like to rid myself of misconceptions about homosexuals in general and I hope I did not offend anyone in here that is gay. I am just wanting to learn about the social dynamics behind the gay movement.

I am really trying to tie a connection between civil rights movements of the past and the gay movement. How many were stopped or stopped at economic justice in favor of social justice and entrance into the mainstream. Well the mainstream comes with itself a host of problems that are endemic to capitalist culture.

Anyone recommend any books or movies or docs or anything really to help me understand? Any lectures? Thanks.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well, yes. Class divisions are just as present in the LGBT community as they are anywhere else. For all the talk of the "pink dollar," the reality of a large number of homeless youth being LGBT is forgotten, or the tension between assimilationists with a petit-bourgeois outlook and liberationists with a proletarian outlook. Etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's part of the way any kinds of social oppression in capitalism operates: generally the entire oppressed group is impacted by the oppression, but their class position determines both the way they are impacted (so, for example, anti-black racism in the US means lack of acess to elite institutions for rich blacks but it more often means direct repression for working class and poor blacks for whom elite colleges or professions are already out of the question) as well as (and resulting from the different ways they are hit by racism or sexism or homophobia) how to rectify the situation.

So a gay or black petty-bourgois is mearly prevented from equal competition with other firms not catering to or run by people from oppressed groups. Their general desire is just to end this barrier - as such reforms (if this group even goes that far - sometimes "a seat at the table" is considered enough) make a tactical sense for their aims. This does not make ultimate sense for workers, since oppressed workers can fight for equal treatment and still then have to fight on the job as workers. It doesn't mean that legal equality is totally useless for workers - it can help make it easier for oppressed and non-oppresed to unite and fight back if they extra weight of jim-crow or fear of being fired for being gay are not part of the equation - but it is only part of the struggle for oppressed workers: fighting oppression and exploitation.

But when there isn't a class movement fighting against these things, and when class-consiousness is realitivly low, it tends to be the elite and petty-bourgoise people in oppressed groups who organize and run many of the lobbying efforts, organizations, and even protests against oppression. They have the money and time and resources to create a campaign - they also have the luxury of not having to worry about being attacked on the street or totally loosing their livelyhood because of the group they are a member of, so they are fine with a slow march of progress and small changes through the legal process - and they often aim to prove that the middle class gays/blacks/women/etc are respectable (which tends to then create elitism inside the movements and anyone too focused on class politics, too militant, or just not rich enough to be considered important is seen as "putting back the cause/race").

Often these elites mearly want to manage oppression. And so black leaders under Jim Crow were often middle class black professionals who earned their leadership in the black community by promising accomodation to Jim-Crow and securing the support of rich white people who could protect the local black community from white terror.

A slightly lower-key version of this happens in "Gayborhoods" too I think. Middle class LGBT people who own businesses or provide niche services are fine with gay-neighborhoods because it provides them with a loyal customer base in an indentifyable hub. Workers and other gay members of the community are attracted to the community in part because of the niche aspects, but this is not the source of the communities: needing a safe area where you can sit with your partner in a resturant without being asked to leave or harassed in the parking lot is pretty essential in this society. But that's also a narrow and short-term view: ultimately the attraction to gay neighborhoods is a refuge from oppression and so the real desire is to be free from oppression, not find a bubble to hide in. But for the entrepenures, real-estate developers who exploit "gay ghettos" to promote gentrification efforts, and middleclass LGBT lifestyle magazines, there is no fundamental challenge to bigotry, in fact they benifit from the results of such a society economically even though they themselves may be inconvinienced by it in other ways.

My annecdote about this dynamic comes from the Castro District, probably the 1st or 2nd most famous gay enclave in the US. Local political big-wigs - who tend to be landowners or shopowners in the area - have been up in arms trying to get rid of services for homeless runaways in the Castro. For them it's a nussiance and "putting back the cause" because homeless gay youth, who sometimes have drug problems or emotional problems from abuse or sometimes participate in the black market, are "hurting the neighborhood's reputation". What they really mean is that they see their financial sucess in making Castro into half a tourist attraction and half a upper-middle class gentrified area as "gay progress" (a move towards respectability and the underlying political power among local elietes that this gives them personally - they can make city hall listen to them as sucessful developers and businesspeople, rather than use popular power and social movements to gain "power"). So even though the Castro is famous all over the country as a place where LGBT folks can go and not fear open bigotry, the kids who grow up in fucked up homes or face bullying and hatred in their high schools or towns come to the Castro looking to escape oppression only to then be told to move on because the Castro movers and shakers are happy to accomodate to larger oppression in society as long as they can rule the ghettos it creates.

This is true for most oppressed groups. There are similar dynamics in immigrant and black communities. Even Heigh-Ashbury is run by ex-hippies who want to profit off of the aullure of homeless kids dropping acid on the street in the 1960s as long as there are no actual punk traveling kids out on the sidewalks today.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow I knew it was complex but I had no idea it was that complex.

I was wondering what this new establishment within the gay community thinks of the "left over" vestiges of the liberation movement. I am sure they think that's a blight on the movement today and their push for mainstream inclusion.

I know that Houston's Montose district which is one of the biggest gay communities in the country is still up and coming and retains a lot of it's working class look, like an early Castro. It's no West Hollywood or Castro or Chelsea in NYC. But there are plans to really gentifry it and make it an expensive upper middle class area. There is an element where the working class gays are evident and the bars still retain that character. I am wondering if these figures are trying to push them out because it embarrases them and still gives gays this image that is not in line with the new gay niche?

[RadioRaheem84]

Any links? That would be appreciated. Thanks!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I was wondering what this new establishment within the gay community thinks of the "left over" vestiges of the liberation movement. I am sure they think that's a blight on the movement today and their push for mainstream inclusion.


An impediment to be removed, is the short answer. Like any other ruling segment they seek to eliminate obstacles which might pose a threats to their power, wealth, etc. Revolutionary liberationists are few and far between and when they do show themselves they are ostracized. While the further you go into the poorer neighborhoods this becomes less obvious and less seen, in most segments of society it is the rule, not the exception.

I do not classify it as: [wealthy] mainstream VS revolutionary counter-culture. It isn't that simple. Assimilation into the mainstream is a goal, it is just that retention of unique aspects which are to be preserved. To me mainstream means rejection of identity politics and inclusion within the larger working class body (as queer workers, not objects which need special treatment). The wealthy segment exists as any such oligarchy does: to push for their agenda at the cost of the majority.

[soso17]

I'll take the time to write a more comprehensive reply later, but I have to go to work soon...

The first thing that came to mind as I was reading this is the stratification that has developed within the gay community. The gay liberation movement was started on the ground, in a grassroots fashion. The Stonewall riots are pretty universally accepted as the first major step in the US gay rights movement. These were lead by those considered to be near the bottom of the scale nowadays. Lesbians and drag queens were the major players at Stonewall. Those who were either closeted (sometimes in heterosexual marriages) and who wanted to be "respectable" didn't have the guts to take such direct action. I've noticed that the activists who start these kinds of movements are usually those who feel they have nothing else to lose. We owe these brave men and women a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the gay bars at the time were Mafia-owned businesses, that felt they were being magnanimous in letting "those people" have a place to go. Really, it was because they were among the first to realize that gay dollars are still dollars. At many bars, the cops were paid off by the proprietors to let them know in advance of raids. The bar would either flash the lights or use another signal, and the people there would quickly cease anything construed as gay, to the point of dancing in opposite-sex couples. Keep in mind that this was only 40 years ago. We have definitely come a long way.

The next thing I thought of was the whole gentrification/commercialization aspect of gay "acceptance". Nowadays, it's considered cool and liberal for citydwellers to live in historically gay neighborhoods, and as a result, gay proletarians are being price out of such neighborhoods. Groups like the Human Rights Campaign host Democratic Party fundraisers than none but the highest income bracket can afford to attend these elite, several-hundred-dollar-a-plate events. Like many other minorities, the Democrats count on the gay vote as a matter of fact, taking such things for granted. I, for one, have a lot more in common with straight proletarians than with the "A-gays" (slang for the snobbish, well-off, "respectable" gay people).Another topic is the idea of tolerance. I hate that word. You tolerate a screaming child. My goal is ACCEPTANCE.

I have always said that visibility is our greatest weapon as gay people. Closets are for clothes and cowards. Many gay people disagree with me on this. I'm firmly in favor of "outing" people, a stance that hasn't won me many friends, but I find the cowardice of the self-hating and internally homophobic downright reprehensible.

Remember "ACT UP"? I think they are an inspiration. They made some errors, yes, but on the whole, we need that sort of direct action.

I realize that this post is all over the place, but like I said, I'm trying to get ready for work while writing it. :cool:

--soso

[RadioRaheem84]

I actually meant it more to mean a divide between wealthy merchant class trying to move the movement into more of a mainstream avenue, as in promoting the family unit, middle class values, professional work ethic, etc vs what they seem to view as left over vestiges of the former gay movement; sexual liberation, drugs, social and economic justice for the LBGT community. Things they think made the gay movement unique but were really just a product of the times. I am still trying to piece this all together so bear with me.

I find the divide between the homeless gay youth and the business developers in the gay neighborhoods a testament of this too. How could such a blatant divide be so unreported in the mainstream media much less the LGBT community? I never even heard of these issues in any of the ground breaking gay television shows or media. Was this ever mentioned in the L Word? Queer as Folk? Even an awareness mention in Will and Grace? I mean anything that anyone can remember. Not just about the homeless youth but what we've discussed so far about the divisions?

[RadioRaheem84]

SOSO, who are these "A-Gays"? And how does their social and economic power reflect on the gay movement? How does it influence it?

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/200811/the-rise-of-the-a-gay?currentPage=2#frmSubmitComment_details_2000000 000026328

Better than the lower caste? Read this article. How can something like this be praised as a good thing though?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

SOSO, who are these "A-Gays"? And how does their social and economic power reflect on the gay movement? How does it influence it?
Look at how many gay pride events are corporately sponsored and are firmly part of the bourgeois social apparatus.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think there are class divisions within the gay community. For starters, I don't think there is such a thing as a "gay community" strictly speaking. "Class divisions within the gay community" seems to imply a separate gay society, where gay capitalists exclusively employ gay workers, who in turn only seek jobs in gay-owned companies. I don't think anything like that actually exists.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Luis, you're overthinking the usage of "community" in this instance.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I find the divide between the homeless gay youth and the business developers in the gay neighborhoods a testament of this too. How could such a blatant divide be so unreported in the mainstream media much less the LGBT community? I never even heard of these issues in any of the ground breaking gay television shows or media. Was this ever mentioned in the L Word? Queer as Folk? Even an awareness mention in Will and Grace? I mean anything that anyone can remember. Not just about the homeless youth but what we've discussed so far about the divisions?

The reason you have never heard of it is probably the same reason you rarely hear of homeless people in general in any TV show: because it admits that there is something wrong with the system. The shows you speak of are bourgeois funded and speak of a gay community which is like the heterosexual one, only queer. In this sense it is not relevant to mention the gay homeless youth because even though this was a reality for a great portion of the community at a point in time, today it is not so; not with the attention being diverted to marriage equality struggles and mainstream acceptance. The homeless, most of whom are queer, are simply treated as homeless in general: decay, laziness, or unfortunate victims of circumstance which are swept under the carpet.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

My goal is ACCEPTANCE.

I have always said that visibility is our greatest weapon as gay people. Closets are for clothes and cowards. Many gay people disagree with me on this. I'm firmly in favor of "outing" people, a stance that hasn't won me many friends, but I find the cowardice of the self-hating and internally homophobic downright reprehensible.
So gay people should be able to be free of prejudice and burden in bourgeois society, but they have no entitlement to shield the parts of their lives they may consider private? Just because a person is gay does not mean they have some abstract obligation to reveal themselves. Wouldn't the apprehension of being "outed" give the "closeted" an incentive to never come out at all? This method seems to place the burden of opposing prejudice upon the individual. For this reason I cannot see why gay people uncomfortable with their sexuality (or hate it) should be considered "downright reprehensible". "Outing" completely ignores the sensitive psychological and social issues that would be involved, hypocritically claiming that these acts of humiliation actually "help" the gay community.

The act of deciding when a certain individual should be comfortable with who they are, thereby violating their privacy and exposing them to issues they may not be ready for, seems to be in sharp contradiction with your stated mission of "acceptance". It is not a decision for you, or anybody else, to make.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well has this been mentioned on the left?

[RadioRaheem84]

So gay people should be able to be free of prejudice and burden in bourgeois society, but they have no entitlement to shield the parts of their lives they may consider private? Just because a person is gay does not mean they have some abstract obligation to reveal themselves. Wouldn't the apprehension of being "outed" give the "closeted" an incentive to never come out at all? This method seems to place the burden of opposing prejudice upon the individual. For this reason I cannot see why gay people uncomfortable with their sexuality (or hate it) should be considered "downright reprehensible". "Outing" completely ignores the sensitive psychological and social issues that would be involved, hypocritically claiming that these acts of humiliation actually "help" the gay community.

The act of deciding when a certain individual should be comfortable with who they are, thereby violating their privacy and exposing them to issues they may not be ready for, seems to be in sharp contradiction with your stated mission of "acceptance". It is not a decision for you, or anybody else, to make.

What about the self hating men that engage in homosexual activity and oppose it formally, like politicians, businesmen and anti-gay activists? While I do not agree with outing tactics I think the outers are working under the assumption that outing people will normalize their relations between gays and non gays? I am not sure.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

What about the self hating men that engage in homosexual activity and oppose it formally, like politicians, businesmen and anti-gay activists? While I do not agree with outing tactics I think the outers are working under the assumption that outing people will normalize their relations between gays and non gays? I am not sure.
Unless the gay community is content with being identified as another manifestation of the paparazzi, this assumption is all the more reason to oppose outing. Are we not seeking to win support for the LGBT community, and in a broader sense, for socialism? I don't believe that the tactics of scandal sheets and celebrity rags will get us there. Acts of individual humiliation will not "normalize" relations between gay and straight people, it will only aggravate them. Targeting people based on their political or personal "affiliation" or political sympathies with one group or another does not expose the power structures of cultural oppression, nor do I believe that it has any potential of raising class consciousness so that we can reach workers or youth. Outing takes what was a right-wing tactic of humiliation against gay people and (bourgeois) left-wing politicians, and only inverts the terms. I honestly think that it should be viewed as a hate crime. And this is not to mention the privacy issue.

[The Feral Underclass]

Gay marriage is a new class issue within the gay community. Heteronormative power dynamics notwithstanding, gay marriage is really only something that men and women who don't suffer major social exclusion, stigmatisation or poverty can happily and affordably to do.

This is taken from an article I wrote recently (not published yet):


"When Stonewall campaigned to have questions about sexual orientation included in national government datasets, due to the fact there is limited information about gay, lesbian and bisexual social exclusion, the Office of National Statistics reported that when testing the question to people from working class communities, defined as low-income people with no educational qualifications, their response was “prefer not to say.” This may seem a trivial thing to point out, but actually if the majority of working class gay men and women are preferring to remain anonymous, in reality, gay marriage is only going to benefit people who have the social approval, inclusion and of course the money to pay for it – three things that working class gay people simply don’t have. This demographic fits perfectly into Tory voting strategies and efforts for the engineering of a business dominated and led society. The champions and victors of the pink pound, like businessman and gay Tory stalwart Ivan Massow, are the ones that will provide funding and will create the air of acceptability within the gay community, or at least to those the Tories believe can fit into the neat engineered “inclusiveness” of Tory Britain: gay and lesbian professionals or the aspiring who can now update their civil partnerships. This is while gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women in working class communities continue to struggle against the stigmatisation of same-sex relationships and social exclusion in the face of engrained heteronormative prejudice."

[RadioRaheem84]

Gay marriage is a new class issue within the gay community. Heteronormative power dynamics notwithstanding, gay marriage is really only something that men and women who don't suffer major social exclusion, stigmatisation or poverty can happily and affordably to do.

This is taken from an article I wrote recently (not published yet):

Finally a link, sort of...

But thanks for the information. Yes, I've also read in an article that a problem within the gay community is access to the inclusion that upper strata homosexuals have made for themselves.

There is a great article by Benjamin Shepard in Monthly Review written a while back called the "Gay Assimilation/Gay Liberationist: Suits vs Sluts" which outlines the split in the movement, with the latter addressin gay issues within the broader context of the system and the former appealing for mainstream acceptance.

I like what he said about the Assimilationists being very apologetic about being gay and establishing that heterosexuals are the neutral sex while gays are the outside group trying to fit in. It should be noted that the Human Rights Campaign (a non-profit human rights think tanks set up to tackle homsexual discrimination) first endorsement was a pro-life Reagan-era Republican.

[blake 3:17]

You might be interested in this: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1866 It's from Peter Drucker, a longtime FIer and gay man, on the politics and consciousness of queerness. I think there's some very interesting reflections about differences between generations and how sexuality is experienced, expressed, and oppressed on the basis of economic injustice.

Our mutual friend was a founder of Queer Nation and died of AIDS-related illness about 8 years ago.

[Jimmie Higgins]

SOSO, who are these "A-Gays"? And how does their social and economic power reflect on the gay movement? How does it influence it?A small segment of well off people in an oppressed community can take advantage of some of the larger neglect and become sort of a "manager" of this second-class status.

So for immigrants this might be a non-enliglish newspaper or other media, for gay people too often magazines and newspapers were a way to be connected with the larger community - especailly if you didn't live in an enclave or were closeted. So this gives a small amoung of people a lot of sway and they get to be "gatekeepers" for what political ideas and solutions are promoted, the magaizines can also be used to organize political campaigns on this or that. The more the general community is repressed, the more these publishers or local political representatives in city hall for various enclaves can draw support and act as a "voice" for the oppressed - but because of who runs these political campaigns and magazines and their relationship both to the oppressed population and general structure of society this is problematic because their interests are not for liberation, but for management of the current state of affairs and so this means they may fight to a degree, but their aims will be inherently limited unless pushed due to wider social pressures.

Although Milk was one of those local movers and shakers (business owner in the Castro that began by organizing other gay business owners) he was operating in more radical times and so was a little more connected to that, though still a reformer and Democrat, not a liberationist or revolutionary. In the Penn movie, though there's some scense with the owner of the Advocate which show some of the dynamic. Milk who was interested in the actions on a street level to an extent, at least realized the issue of homophobia wasn't just social restrictions but was actual oppression and repression as street-kids and gay-bar patrons were routinely and systematically repressed and harassed by thugs and the uniformed thugs. For the super-rich, first being closeted while totally wealthy isn't as restricting as it is for the rest of us - you don't have to worry about the financial ramifications of possibly being cut-off from your family, you don't have to worry about being fired if you own your own business etc. Repression by street cops isn't an issue if you are rich and can meet people other than in bars and other social but public spaces. So in the movie Milk is at odds with the publishers who want to take a "slow, safe" road to political respectability and fear that Milk's connection to more activist oriented stuff in the Castro would "harm the movement" and threaten the "seat at the table" made by the eliete by allying with the Democrats.

I don't know how true that was, but the dynamic was true enough that in 2004 the same thing happened as many Democrats and elite gays blamed Bush's re-election on a "reckless" attempt at pushing gay marriage forward.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Gay marriage is a new class issue within the gay community. Heteronormative power dynamics notwithstanding, gay marriage is really only something that men and women who don't suffer major social exclusion, stigmatisation or poverty can happily and affordably to do.

This is taken from an article I wrote recently (not published yet):

I disagree with this - at least for the US experience - because I don't see these as opposing, I think part of the striving for this reform on the part of many people is seen as an attempt to destroy some of the stigmatization of same sex relationships.

First while I think eveything you describe above is true to a certain extent, I think you've only presented one side of the issue and I think that among LGBT activists this reform and the reasons for it are contested. It would be like saying that only middle class people are against the US invasion of Iraq because they want the US military to be seen as a humanitarian force. While this was certaintly true for a lot of liberals who went against the war, that would be a distorited representation of the dynamics and totality of opinion and motivation.

So for marriage, I think there is certaintly some people who want just "respectability" for the reasons you describe - often the middle class groups and so on are explicit about this. And so materially, this group would probably have no meaningfully different experience between "civil partnership" and "marriage" status. But in the US it also goes beyond "respectability" or achiving a certain kind of status; for workers there would be a material benifit because it would help legitimize same-sex relationships, it would make it more possible for people who did want a marriage-type partnership to have one if they didn't live in urban areas where there are lots of ways to have a "non-tradditional" marrage for homosexual or heterosexual couples. So rather than a kind of abstract middle class "respectability" as the motivation, I think for many people the motivation is to alliviate some of the conditions and material pressures (and social pressures) that cause more working class people to remain partially or fully closeted for fear of social reprocussions on the job or being cut-off from family support and so on.

So in short, along with the middle class motivation I think there is also a liberation-urge within the desire for this refom for many people. There's overlap and confusion, but that's because while people are willing to go out a protest sometimes, there really isn't any counter-weight to liberal LGBT organizations and so their desires are broadcast more loudly and more articulated. And also in the US I think it is much more often the case that these same liberal groups are pushing not for "marriage" but some segregated analogue because really that can win them the acess to certain rights they desire without provoking a real fight against wider homophobia - a head-on fight which is what a marriage reform would probably require in the US.