![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
And today the knives are really coming out
It has been often noted that an alliance is at its most vulnerable in two stages: at the verge of defeat, and at the edge of victory. This is an example.
We've just watched the GLB portion of the former GBLT alliance throw the transgendered under the bus. That was bad - real bad - behaviour, and signals very clearly that the national GLB rights movement - particularly the G part of it, if Andrew Sullivan's commentary this morning is any indication - has reached a treasured milestone in American society: the point where they can say, "fuck you, I got mine," and knife the somewhat-more-undesirable undesirables in the back to demonstrate that there's someone else they're better than. It's kind of the welcome ceremony of American politics, really; one of the things you do is turn to some of your own and say, "thanks for your decades of work and money and blood, now here's a shiny knife for you, right between your ribs. Buh-bye!"
There's been some pretending that this is about incrementalism, but that's a lie, and I think the people spouting off about that generally know it. Civil unions vs. marriage - that's incrementalism. Job protections but not lending? That would be incrementalism. Taking part of your alliance and throwing them to the wolves as untouchables? That's not. The pretending is just that - a pretense, a way of justifying the betrayal, to turn the anger of those they've betrayed into anger of their own back at their victims. How dare you complain? How DARE you?! they howl. And then they blame you for what they've done.
Today, though, the knives are really coming out. The successful vote sealed it, I suppose; the Stranger is crowing about how Good and Right and Necessary it was, tho' this time, at least, there's much more argument than agreement in the comments so far. (This wasn't true in the previous post.) The New York Times is pushing the "incrementalist" lie, heaping praise on Rep. Frank. Andrew Sullivan is going off on how the zomg trannies were never part of his coalition, and for that matter, he's not even sure having the G and L together makes that much sense either. Gay journalist Rex Wockner pretends that the transgendered are somehow new to this whole struggle, and wants to know who the hell invited them, anyway, and why don't they do their own work - ignoring the decades of effort running the other direction, of course, and the transgendered participation in (and arguably initiation of) the Stonewall Riots, as all the people on that side of this maneuver do. And the Stranger linked to John Aravosis at AmericaBlog - commending him specifically in doing so - who is all for the knifing, spending more time blasting Inclusive-ENDA backers National Gay and Lesbian Task Force than the fundamentalists, and who holds up the 70% number in that Human Rights Campaign poll to talk more about how Good and Right it all was.
I'm genuinely surprised. I thought that the "normal" queers, having so much immediate experience with the politics of betrayal and self-sabotage, would forget less quickly, or, at least, might go, "y'know? That really sucked. I don't want any part of that." But I was wrong; apparently the reaction has been less that and more, "Man, I can't wait until it's my turn. That's gonna be great."
So. Who gets thrown under the bus next? Bisexuals, who don't really count, since a lot of them (us) end up with opposite-gender partners (tho' not in my case)? It's much easier, having that option; maybe they (we) aren't so deserving. Plus everybody knows they really want one of each, and that's not what Real Gay People Want, and is kinda icky. Kinda greedy. Or maybe even lesbians, as hinted at by Mr. Sullivan today, noting that he doesn't "really believe there is even a 'gay and lesbian community' as such"? All that time lesbians put in helping AIDS-stricken gay men in the 1980s? Screw that, there are drugs now. Ancient history.
Or maybe nobody. Maybe having played out the political blood rite, the HRC and the national GLB community will manage not to shed any more letters. It's not like they can afford the numbers. But even given the manifest stupidity of such a thing, I don't know how much money I'd want to put against it. Not today, anyway. Maybe tomorrow it will be different. Maybe Monday. Maybe the NGLTF can displace HRC as the queer organisation that people actually know. I guess we'll see.
When people reference that adage about alliances coming apart at the edge of victory, they usually forget the part where that's how alliances often lose that same triumph.
I know they've just lost me.
We've just watched the GLB portion of the former GBLT alliance throw the transgendered under the bus. That was bad - real bad - behaviour, and signals very clearly that the national GLB rights movement - particularly the G part of it, if Andrew Sullivan's commentary this morning is any indication - has reached a treasured milestone in American society: the point where they can say, "fuck you, I got mine," and knife the somewhat-more-undesirable undesirables in the back to demonstrate that there's someone else they're better than. It's kind of the welcome ceremony of American politics, really; one of the things you do is turn to some of your own and say, "thanks for your decades of work and money and blood, now here's a shiny knife for you, right between your ribs. Buh-bye!"
There's been some pretending that this is about incrementalism, but that's a lie, and I think the people spouting off about that generally know it. Civil unions vs. marriage - that's incrementalism. Job protections but not lending? That would be incrementalism. Taking part of your alliance and throwing them to the wolves as untouchables? That's not. The pretending is just that - a pretense, a way of justifying the betrayal, to turn the anger of those they've betrayed into anger of their own back at their victims. How dare you complain? How DARE you?! they howl. And then they blame you for what they've done.
Today, though, the knives are really coming out. The successful vote sealed it, I suppose; the Stranger is crowing about how Good and Right and Necessary it was, tho' this time, at least, there's much more argument than agreement in the comments so far. (This wasn't true in the previous post.) The New York Times is pushing the "incrementalist" lie, heaping praise on Rep. Frank. Andrew Sullivan is going off on how the zomg trannies were never part of his coalition, and for that matter, he's not even sure having the G and L together makes that much sense either. Gay journalist Rex Wockner pretends that the transgendered are somehow new to this whole struggle, and wants to know who the hell invited them, anyway, and why don't they do their own work - ignoring the decades of effort running the other direction, of course, and the transgendered participation in (and arguably initiation of) the Stonewall Riots, as all the people on that side of this maneuver do. And the Stranger linked to John Aravosis at AmericaBlog - commending him specifically in doing so - who is all for the knifing, spending more time blasting Inclusive-ENDA backers National Gay and Lesbian Task Force than the fundamentalists, and who holds up the 70% number in that Human Rights Campaign poll to talk more about how Good and Right it all was.
I'm genuinely surprised. I thought that the "normal" queers, having so much immediate experience with the politics of betrayal and self-sabotage, would forget less quickly, or, at least, might go, "y'know? That really sucked. I don't want any part of that." But I was wrong; apparently the reaction has been less that and more, "Man, I can't wait until it's my turn. That's gonna be great."
So. Who gets thrown under the bus next? Bisexuals, who don't really count, since a lot of them (us) end up with opposite-gender partners (tho' not in my case)? It's much easier, having that option; maybe they (we) aren't so deserving. Plus everybody knows they really want one of each, and that's not what Real Gay People Want, and is kinda icky. Kinda greedy. Or maybe even lesbians, as hinted at by Mr. Sullivan today, noting that he doesn't "really believe there is even a 'gay and lesbian community' as such"? All that time lesbians put in helping AIDS-stricken gay men in the 1980s? Screw that, there are drugs now. Ancient history.
Or maybe nobody. Maybe having played out the political blood rite, the HRC and the national GLB community will manage not to shed any more letters. It's not like they can afford the numbers. But even given the manifest stupidity of such a thing, I don't know how much money I'd want to put against it. Not today, anyway. Maybe tomorrow it will be different. Maybe Monday. Maybe the NGLTF can displace HRC as the queer organisation that people actually know. I guess we'll see.
When people reference that adage about alliances coming apart at the edge of victory, they usually forget the part where that's how alliances often lose that same triumph.
I know they've just lost me.
no subject
Whatever happens, I'll never throw you under a bus, babe. *hugs*
no subject
I went through this same experience, politically, as you just did when I was working on private animal ownership. The bird people, who are the most powerful lobby in the world (trust me, no one has more power), dumped everyone because when the new laws came out, they were exempted. It got worse after that. (And yes there are fundie assholes even in that biz, though most of them are charletins and everyone knows it.) Few people really have principles anymore, and fewer still understand the old saying 'If we do not hang together, we will all hang separately'.
no subject
And of course, the right wingers gets what it so dearly loves - to sew dissention and rancor into our midst, have us all get ugly towards one another and slit one another's throats scrabbling for crumbs from the Master's table and in the end - Bush vetoes this thing and nobody gets nuthin'. Well, except that a highly unpopular minority has divided itself, thus making us all so much easier to pick off.
The 80s weren't that long ago...and that's when we learned best that if we don't hang together, we all hang seperately. When so many of us were dying, we all rallied around one another because it was painfully apparent to us that our lives didn't matter and that the Establishment would just as soon we -did- all die off. We had to stick up for one another and for awhile then it didn't matter where you fell on the G/L/B/T/Q spectrum....there were two kinds of Queers, healthy and sick. If you were fortunate enough to be in the one group, you took care of whomever was in the other. At least you did in the circles I ran with.
We should know better, damnit! What the hell is going on? How can we not see how this hand is going to play out? I'm just heartsick over it. Just utterly, utterly heartbroken and heartsick.
no subject
I think they (the Dems) do represent the party, and worse still, that the Congress is actually somewhat representative of the population at large (at least on GLBT issues). I'm heartened that the bill passed the House, and has a chance to pass in the Senate (even though there is no chance of it not being vetoed). To me, that's progress. I'm not satisfied with it, and I won't be satisfied until truly equal rights are established. I recognize this as a milestone, not a destination.
I'm not saying "it's all right, don't be mad." Let that anger continue to fuel as we educate, inspire, cajole, and work.
no subject
You mean, like Canada and Australia are still part of the UK*, or like Mexico is still a part of Spain? Why is it that so many USAians still believe the "revolution" gave them a freedom they wouldn't have achieved anyway, simply by outgrowing the Crown's ability to control them?
If Franklin and Adams decided to disregard the slavery issue for no other reason than to save the independence movement, then they made a tragic mistake. Repeating it does not improve anything.
*) I'm quite aware of the remaining political ties, and they basically don't matter: Canada and Australia are independent from the UK.
no subject
As for the wisdom of that decision, I disagree with you that it was a tragic mistake, even for the slaves. Although the Brits freed their slaves in the 1830's, we'll never know how long it would have taken them to do so if they had a major economic stake (through continued dominion over parts of the North American continent) ... or indeed, whether THAT would have triggered a revolution the way it triggered the Civil War. And the concepts of personal freedom, separation of church and state and the rights of the citizen against the state would have been set back significantly.*
*) And I'm quite aware of the myriad ways we fall short of the nation's ideals. We're trying to head in the right direction.
no subject
The hell? The colony outgrowing the parent country was a well-established model literally thousands of years before 1776.
And the concepts of personal freedom, separation of church and state and the rights of the citizen against the state would have been set back significantly.
Those concepts were implemented in Europe through a slow (century-long) but steady process with occasional flare-ups; by 1848 most nations in Europe had been thoroughly transformed by it. This is in contrast with the USA, which is still stuck in some weird half-medieval/half-modern political model.
It's not as much that you fall short of your nation's ideals as that you (at least from the outside) seem to have some strange Orwellian alternative interpretation of them. What freedom? Your middle class people are serfs, your lower class people are worse off than slaves. What separation of church and state? Your government (locally and nationally) is completely committed to Christianity, and your political debate seems to be based on the bible's teachings. What rights of the citizen? Do you have any rights at all beyond what your personal wealth or power afford you?
I'm venting frustration here, and I'm probably unfair both to you and to your country. It's just so painful to see how USA is currently disgracing itself and pulling down the rest of the world into war and oppression at the same time.
no subject
There's a way people act when they're doing the right thing at a cost to someone else---at the cost of a wrong thing.
A kind of flinchy-but-standing willingness to take the heat for it, to feel through the suffering themselves.
I think there'd be a lot more "Oh, God, I'm so sorry we're doing this" and a lot less "GO US WE DID IT" if this were a moral thing.
I'm not hearing Barney Frank out there saying,
"This is a fucking dark day, and I may be damned for it, but at least I dragged people a little forward."
And I'm not finding the bit where he excoriated every last coward in Congress who made him leave people behind before finally shaming them into giving him what they did.
So . . . unless I've missed those bits, which is possible, I'm not sure why exactly anyone who knows the history *would* think this was doing right.
Except that there is *nobody* in this world quite so disliked as a victim, and therefore nobody so lionized as the guy who's just let go of the shiv.
no subject
Which is, as I've said before, is the obvious result of this maneuver. This is not incrementalism, almost everybody knows it, and everyone who doesn't, should.
no subject
I'm not surprised that incrementalism hasn't produce a Ts law yet - I think the changes will be measured in decades, not years. According to a NY times survey, over the past decade, the percentage of Americans who thought gay acts should be illegal has fallen from 67% to 41%. Things are changing, slowly. That doesn't mean we should be mindlessly satisfied with the pace of change. But it doesn't mean that we should dismiss the changes that have happened, either.
IMHO. YMMV.
no subject
Now, that's not so much, and the Ts have been told thanks, but you're no longer useful to us, get the hell out. And being handed "incrementalism" and "long view" crap. And I don't care how it's spun, it's still crap and I'm not buyin' it.
no subject
I don't know where people get off being exclusive rather than inclusive. I mean, we're *people*, for Seldon's sake, white, black, Asian, purple polky-dots, male, female, both, neither, straight, gay, bi, sapiosexual, Christian, pagan, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, or worshipping a frelling tomato, and at least I was taught that you treat them with respect (until and unless they do otherwise to you). But I wish they'd get a clue...
no subject
what i really want is for there to be a bunch of case law that declares that trans-people are covered under plain old sex discrimination laws.
i'm not holding my breath, tho.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The rest of us are still here and working for lots of things that matter. I'm so sorry this is so painful for you; I've got to say, as sort of a loudmouth weirdo not-traditionally-partnered bisexual woman I've never been all that sure the 'mainstream' gay movement spoke for me, even when there were goals I have had in common.
no subject
no subject
no subject