Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1930275)

I think she's trying to point out that they're a hidden minority and can hide it whereas women or PoC cannot. Which is true. But that gets too close to the next step which is, "therefore women/PoC have it harder than gay people" or alternatively "therefore they should hide it." I'm not sure she's trying to make either of those points though because she kind of has a tendency to suggest heterosexist things without necessarily meaning them.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1930278)

Whomever brought race and ethnicity into this discussion sucks hairy rat balls. I hope it wasn't me. If so, booooooooo. It annoys the hell outta me that the discrimination of ONE GROUP can't be discussed without attempting to compare and rank oppressions and discriminations.

With that said, it is true that sexual orientation is more easily hidden than race and ethnicity. Discrimination and -isms are about power dynamics and identifiability. If groups are not identifiable as a power minority, they are not easily targeted for bigotry and discrimination. This doesn't mean that people should hide their homosexuality. It means that they CAN do so if they choose to in many (definitely not all) settings. And there are plenty of instances of people who are "in the closet" discriminating on the basis of race. It often does not work the other way around except in the lesser contexts where heterosexual power trumps the oppressed status of their racial and/or ethnic group membership.

Now...that discussion sucked hairy rat balls.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1930276)

If that's the point she's making, she's not making it well.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1930278)

With that said, it is true that sexual orientation is more easily hidden than race and ethnicity. Discrimination and -isms are about power dynamics and identifiability. If groups are not identifiable as a power minority, they are not easily targeted for bigotry and discrimination.

Now...that discussion sucked hairy rat balls.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1930280)

Politics would be a good example. I don't like this topic either.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1930283)

And I'd modify the statement I left in your quote slightly. They are no easy individual targets for bigotry, but lack of visibility can also increase the prejudice against the group itself. If only because there's no one visible to contradict the stereotypes. I'm not sure I'm making my point clear, so do let me know if you think I'm just being more confusing.

I'm trying to get at the idea of "GAY PEOPLE ARE LIKE X Y Z. Oh wait, my best friend Bob is gay? Well, he's ok... and so is that singer I like, and my neighbor.. well I guess they're not so bad." i just don't know what word I'm looking for.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1930294)

I know what you mean, but I don't care about stereotypes. Prejudice and bigotry are about stereotypes, ignorance, and biases. Those things are unimportant to me.

I care about discrimination, which does not require prejudice and bigotry. It is about power dynamics and group advantage. You can like homosexuals and not believe the stereotypes but not want homosexuals to get married because it threatens heterosexual advantage.

As I always say, I don't care if people like me or how they FEEL about any of my group identities. They can think all Black women are dumb hood chicks for all I care. Just don't try to discriminate on the basis of my group identities.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1930294)

I know what you mean, but I don't care about stereotypes. Prejudice and bigotry are about stereotypes, ignorance, and biases. Those things are unimportant to me.

I care about discrimination, which does not require prejudice and bigotry. It is about power dynamics and group advantage. You can like homosexuals and not believe the stereotypes but not want homosexuals to get married because it threatens heterosexual advantage.

As I always say, I don't care if people like me or how they FEEL about any of my group identities. They can think all Black women are dumb hood chicks for all I care. Just don't try to discriminate on the basis of my group identities.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1930268)

I did not miss any of your points, you've only now made an attempt to clarify to where your points are actually understandable. In addition you continually used language that is discriminatory and predominately used by anti-gay groups. For example, there still is no "gay lifestyle" just as there is no "gay look." I'm glad you've been willing to listen during this conversation.
Only thing I clarified was "nuts". Didnt think the context was that far off. My bad.


Now I understand what you were trying to say, although I hope you understand why it was so difficult to understand what you meant when you didn't actually provide detail. Yes, gay people can sometimes hide their orientation for a variety of reasons, however it isn't easy and as I said before it's not really fair to call it a choice when it isn't freely chosen. There are few people who would choose not to talk about their primary relationships, or avoid having relationships altogether if society wasn't pressuring them to. But their visibility isn't different from most religions, barring individuals or sects that promote a specifically identifiable type of dress. (Orthodox Jews for example)

And many pro LGBTQ organizations encourage people to come out to increase visibility of the population because being a more hidden minority tends to increase prejudice.

However, I don't do a lot of comparison between how hard it is for one group vs another because this isn't the Oppression Olympics.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1930275)

I think she's trying to point out that they're a hidden minority and can hide it whereas women or PoC cannot. Which is true. But that gets too close to the next step which is, "therefore women/PoC have it harder than gay people" or alternatively "therefore they should hide it." I'm not sure she's trying to make either of those points though because she kind of has a tendency to suggest heterosexist things without necessarily meaning them.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. (Post 1930351)

It was a distinction not a comparison. It was a distinction because dismantling the oppression of gays is on a deeper level than just equality. That gay people have to (and that they can) hide who they are to get equal treatment is a big part of the problem. If they couldnt hide it then I think people who are heterosexist and homophobic would be forced to deal with their issues more often.

The next step would be that if gay people can get equal treatment by being in the closet then gay people should be able to get equal treatment when they're out of the closet. I said its a choice because each person decides to be out of the closet. I dont feel that gays should hide or that they should have to, but I do recognize that they do and since they do people can justify their b/s (ie: Dont ask dont tell) or ignore the issue all together.

Originally Posted by starang21 (Post 1930354)

kagan looks like john lovitz in a dress.

Originally Posted by starang21 (Post 1930356)

qualified doesn't mean best.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1927946)

Of course not, you passive aggressive little bitch.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1930358)

*yawn* old