Wao, cool! (^_^)
Why do they do this? Did we ask for it? Does it do any good?
This is NOT the way to combat prejudice – it only stokes negative sentiments; it’s completely counter-productive. We don’t want special treatment, we want equal treatment: this just suggests to majority communities that we’re gunning for special rights, and that they don’t matter to the police. This is completely the wrong way to go about things.
It appalls me that Stonewall etc are continually allowed to speak ‘on behalf of’ us gays, without any democratic mandate whatsoever. Meanwhile, those of us who see being gay as incidental to our lives are completely unrepresented, so everyone thinks Stonewall speak for us too. It’s not right.
PC claptrap like this is not the way to combat prejudice – far better to be out, proud and NORMAL! Who the hell chose the vulgar, gaudy rainbow flag anyway? I don’t feel represented by it. Nor do I want to be lumped together with drag queens and transgender people – that’s nothing to do with sexuality. And no, I’m not self-loathing, I’m very happy in my skin – but all this stuff makes it so much harder for young gay people to come out, and reinforces the stereotype of the whiny, vulnerable, pathetic gay boy. I don’t want to be represented in this way.
“all this stuff makes it so much harder for young gay people to come out”
Actually I think it does precisely the opposite. How does this reinforce those stereotypes at all? I don’t understand your logic.
OK Stuart, imagine your parents are indifferent to gays, never really been touched by it, then they hear about something like this – what’s their reaction? That we’re ramming it down their throats, it’s PC gone mad, it’ll be compulsory next etc etc. Not good for a young person’s self esteem. The stonewall gay rights/PC approach does nothing to improve perceptions of gays – how could it, when it’s premised on defining people by their sexuality? Being gay isn’t about bright rainbow colours, musicals and drag queens for pity’s sake – it’s about liking men, sleeping with men and living with men. That’s what we have to get people used to, and you don’t do that through laws or PC posturing, it’s through actually being openly gay and making people confront the fact that normal people are gay.
Whilst I welcome any show of support for the gay community I think this step opens up a minefield of political sensitivities.
Will the same police stations now be forming a rosta for when all other minority interest groups will have their flag hoisted?
John, I would have loved to have seen more open signs of solidarity with the gay community when I was coming to terms with my sexuality. I felt like I was the only one. With your logic we may as well hide our sexuality, ashamed that other people will rise up against it because we’re “ramming it down their throats”. David Davies is a moron.
Stuart, what I would have liked (and would still like) is a public image of gays that is not defined by effeminacy, cross-dressing and physical weakness. We should be very open about our sexuality – in terms of sex, attraction, and affection – but we cannot allow the public face of gays to be dominated by limp, PC, pathetic people who see gays as a disadvantaged group which needs handouts and favours from authorities. I can only repeat that this will change no attitudes; what will change attitudes is better role models and a gay rights movement that is representative of all gays, not just the whingers.
But I don’t understand. Who are the limp, PC, pathetic people here? All they did was fly the rainbow flag to celebrate IDAHO. People wave st george’s cross on st george’s day. How’s this different?
I get your point about the negative stereotypes but I really don’t think that flying the rainbow flag harms us or perpetuates a negative stereotype about us.
A previous poster claimed “what I would have liked (and would still like) is a public image of gays that is not defined by effeminacy, cross-dressing and physical weakness”. In other words, I want my equal rights as a masculine gay man, but I care nothing for other groups such as transsexuals and transvestites, or even just regular gay guys who are aren’t squaddie-butch. Such an approach is flawed – our opponents already regard all gay men as unworthy of equality, no matter how masculine they think they are. The most appropriate political strategy is therefore to support each other regardless of perceived masculinity. Once gay men turn on others, then they cannot complain when straights denigrate them.
Well no, I’m not a particularly masculine man. But you’re right, I do resent the T in LGBT, because it’s nothing to do with sexuality – it’s about gender, and the issues are completely different. Transvestism is also nothing to do with gays. But the image of effeminacy perpetuated by the likes of Graham Norton, Alan Carr etc etc is entirely detrimental to our rights, and incredibly damaging to young gay men. And their behaviour is contrived and unnecessary – so no, I don’t ‘support’ them, they are part of the problem.
Stuart, it is the impression of desiring special treatment and special rights because we’re ‘vulnerable’ that is damaging. It polarizes people who would have no objection to seeing us kissing in the street etc – it’s that behaviour we need to normalise, and it just doesn’t require this kind of PC stunt.
The problem with our PCs today is that they are all just too, well, PC. Get back to doing your job boys and try arresting a few criminals for a change!
John, Stuart… I’m having big difficulty getting my head around your opinions. So is what you’re saying “People who take my side do me an injustice” …?
Well the conclusion I’m building up, is that the more a hear the less I understand and the less I want to participate. Not particularly in the message boards, you understand: just in life itself.
If you’re feeling down about life, I suggest you have a chat with a friend or loved one.
I was saying that well-meaning people frequently try and do things to ‘help us’ without asking us whether it’s what we want – I think this is counterproductive in this instance. Yes, they’re on our side, that’s great, but they don’t seem to understand what we need, which is not special favours but equality.
Er, I live in Manchester and am quite pleased that the chief constable is actually say that he’s doing something about homophobia. It makes a pleasant change from the way that the GMP used to be. Those of you too young to remember should google “James Anderton”. John, there’s nothing abnormal about a police force saying it won’t put up with homophobic hate crimes. I’d rather give them the benefit of the doubt than engage in your kind of histrionics.
Of course it should not put up with hate crimes (though I do fear recent incitement legislation may be over-interpreted to cover mere ‘offence’, when we have no right not to be offended). But I’d suggest that this kind of act may do more to stoke hate than overcome it. It certainly does nothing to contribute to the kind of on-the-beat policing which will prevent homophobic crime.
Firstly,we need to remember what the IDAHO campaign is about-it’s about addressing a world where you can be judicially murdered or imprisoned for being gay. This campaign isn’t really politically controversial in the UK-its supported by all the main political parties,including the Conservative Party. There is a logistical reason for police forces to raise the rainbow flag-its because homophobic hate crime is under reported and its a sign that LGBT people can feel safe in reporting such crimes. If you want your life to be dictated by a Daily Mail agenda, you presumably spend your time worrying that LGBT History Month is a communist plot!
Jesus, so we gays need a rainbow flag on a building before we feel safe to enter?! The point is that the same people who are fine with us kissing in the street, who welcome CPs etc are alienated by this because it seems to be a privilege to which they are not entitled – and why should only we be entitled to it? Just because we have a flag? What about other groups vulnerable to crime – the poor, young black men etc. This singling-out of gays is contrary to equality and that (not our homosexuality) is what stokes resentment.
More importantly, I do not feel I am not represented by Stonewall and the other gay organisations – it’s about time we stopped allowing unelected bodies to be ‘the voice of gays’ to the media – it makes us all look like paranoid PC obsessives.