Introducing Queers United

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:49 AM GMT
    A blog with activist updates to get LGBT people responding to those who oppress us. The site has just begun please bookmark and come back regularly for updates and let me know any thoughts and ideas you have. Oh and leave comments on there =)

    http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 11:03 AM GMT
    any feedback would be much appreciated the good and the bad.

    http://queersunited.blogspot.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 12:11 PM GMT
    Pretty lame.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Mar 24, 2008 12:31 PM GMT
    Sounds like the Romans... "those who oppress us".

    I think an organization like this is appropriate if it serves as an organization that responds to the interests of the Gay and Lesbian community.

    Those who "oppress" us sounds way too combative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 1:19 PM GMT
    Thanks for your input. It is responding to the interest of the gay/les community but probably mostly will only attract those interested in activism, specifically activism that involves emailing, calling, mailing things.

    http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 1:42 PM GMT
    Hippie, have you ever read I wonder Urvashi Vaid's book "Virtual Equality". It is an incisive, perhaps a little dated (it's from the late 90s) but nonetheless largely valid, discussion of the curious situation of half-tolerance that american LGBT people find themselves in.

    I don't expect it to change your opinions; I don't want it to. But I think it might help place your own views in the context of LGBT history and moreover to see the failings (and the social and social psychological reasons behind those failings) of the activist/legalist/assimilationist approaches.

    I fear, at the moment, that you are in danger of perpetuating the mistakes of others. Which would be a tremendous waste of your engagement and activism.

    Sorry if this post appears condescending. It is emphatically not intended to be.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 2:07 PM GMT
    TigerTim said

    I fear, at the moment, that you are in danger of perpetuating the mistakes of others. Which would be a tremendous waste of your engagement and activism.



    In what way? I haven't read the book, but why do you feel activism fails?
  • Powertrip

    Posts: 64

    Mar 24, 2008 7:05 PM GMT
    hippie4lyfe said[quote][cite]TigerTim said[/cite]

    I fear, at the moment, that you are in danger of perpetuating the mistakes of others. Which would be a tremendous waste of your engagement and activism.



    In what way? I haven't read the book, but why do you feel activism fails?[/quote]

    I think I understand what Tiger says... we can't fight fire with fire on this. I would advise (if I may) having another approach... how about posting your opinions always keeping in mind that there's room for diversity. We're all different in our own way, eventually I found that there's no "them vs us", it's more like "some people are misinformed and we need more real gay guys (not the characters on tv) to speak their own voices while giving an example of respect and authenticity". So, cook up a little bit more your concept... it's true, you could repeat the mistakes of the past but I think we all started that way, it's the emotion that drives us to act, and being rejected of feeling attacked are powerful motivations but, as I said before, we can't fight fire with fire 'cause we'll end up in one hell of a BBQ where nobody will have any fun.

    You have the drive... you just have to focus. Kuddos!
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Mar 24, 2008 9:28 PM GMT
    Hippie,

    I wasn't going to post to this, but you did say good and the bad.

    If you removed "queer" from the blog, it would be a step in the right direction. Activist groups using insulting words and terms like that to describe us are going nowhere fast.

    I honestly think there are a lot in the gay community that don't want to be accepted or respected. They just want an excuse to carry on fighting.

    Mike
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 9:42 PM GMT
    "I honestly think there are a lot in the gay community that don't want to be accepted or respected."

    Oh, I don't think so. I'd have limited that, if I'd written it to "I think there are a lot in the gay community that don't have to be accepted but demand to be respected and treated equally.".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2008 10:00 PM GMT
    ugh i clicked and then hit the red X button immediately, looks like just another blog.. sorry


    If they want to get a point across, at least make an effort
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 12:26 AM GMT
    Well here's the deal: I don't believe activism fails and I didn't say that. But it needs to be understood in a broader context.

    I have, in my life, been chained to diggers on multiple occasions; I've been arrested; I've been cautioned (for biting a policeman -- I *was* 13!); I've marched against wars and fascism. I'm no stranger to activism. And my great aunt was one of the Greenham Common women.

    But does activism work? Not in isolation. Is it necessary? Yes. But how and why and why not can only be understood in the context of history... and that sense of the LGBT movements is absolutely necessary in formulating a plan for the here and now.

    Do please read the book. I'd be delighted to discuss it with you after you've done so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 12:30 AM GMT
    MikePhil said
    If you removed "queer" from the blog, it would be a step in the right direction. Activist groups using insulting words and terms like that to describe us are going nowhere fast.

    I honestly think there are a lot in the gay community that don't want to be accepted or respected. They just want an excuse to carry on fighting.


    So you are an assimilationist/reformist. Fine, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with liberationism... and do you think the freedoms we enjoy in Europe could have been won without activism?

    Queer is a political statement. But surely it is only insulting if voiced, shrilly, from the mouths of homophobes?

  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Mar 25, 2008 12:54 AM GMT
    TigerTim said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite]
    If you removed "queer" from the blog, it would be a step in the right direction. Activist groups using insulting words and terms like that to describe us are going nowhere fast.

    I honestly think there are a lot in the gay community that don't want to be accepted or respected. They just want an excuse to carry on fighting.


    So you are an assimilationist/reformist. Fine, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with liberationism... and do you think the freedoms we enjoy in Europe could have been won without activism?

    Queer is a political statement. But surely it is only insulting if voiced, shrilly, from the mouths of homophobes?

    [/quote]

    "assimilationist" I have no idea what that word means?

    Activism would have brought alot further if not for the fact that our community use those words.

    Queer is insulting no matter who's mouth it comes from. In fact, it make me alot more angry to hear it coming from a gay person than a homophobes.

    Mike

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 1:07 AM GMT
    I mean assimilationist in the sense of the belief that LGBT people ought to be assimilated into society. The term Legitimationist is perhaps more usual.

    I think we shall have to disagree on the status of the word 'queer'. It is a strong word that implies a rejection of norms; it implies that difference is more than acceptable, it is to be desired and is a source of power; it is a legitimate political statement.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
  • GeorgeNJ

    Posts: 216

    Mar 25, 2008 1:49 AM GMT
    MikePhil, I have to admit I'm sympathetic to your objection to the use of the word queer. However I checked it out in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 11th ed, and was surprised at what I found.

    1st, it uses words I expected -- "worthless, counterfeit ... questionable, suspicious ... eccentric, unconventional ... (and of course) often disparaging: homosexual..."

    But then I found the following attached note:

    Usage Over the past two decades, an important change has occurred in the use of queer ... The older, strongly pejorative use has certainly not vanished, but a use by some gay people and some academics as a neutral or even positive term has established itself ... The newer use is sometimes taken to be offensive, esp. by older gay men who fostered the acceptance of gay in these uses and still have a strong preference for it.

    "Assimlationist" means to make similar. Not to put words in their mouth, but I think what Tiger, McGay and others are asserting is that gay people ought to be accepted in their own right, without having to conform to the interests, ways of acting, etc., of our straight counterparts.

    I think there is a certain nobleness to what Tiger, McGay, etc., are affirming -- it requires a lot of courage.

    I do think some gay men go too far and actually become a caricature of themselves (distorted, exaggerated), and I really hate when that is identified as real gay life. But then this phenomenon exists among straight men as well, like neo-nazism, or machismo -- both exaggerated (read: false) images of masculinity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 4:03 AM GMT
    TimHippie, have you ever read I wonder Urvashi Vaid's book "Virtual Equality". It is an incisive, perhaps a little dated (it's from the late 90s) but nonetheless largely valid, discussion of the curious situation of half-tolerance that american LGBT people find themselves in.

    Geez, it's been over 10 years since that book was published and it was incredibly controversial (as was Vaid during her time at the NGLTF).

    The same year, Andrew Sullivan published his own "virtual book" -- "Virtually Normal." It received far more attention than Vaid's book, probably because as a conservative white Anglo-Saxon upper-class man, he was much more palatable to the media. Urvashi's book, far better researched and liberal, got comparatively little attention. She's Indian-born, relatively radical and involved NGLTF in liberal causes not directly related to the gay civil rights movement.

    Vaid's book was reviewed in the NY Times Book Review by Bruce Bawer, a Sullivan clone who published "A Place at the Table" (thus guaranteeing that Vaid's book would be panned). In his review, Bawer -- whom Vaid mentioned negatively in her book -- basically calls her a commie. At the time, the NY Times was in love with Sullivan, who wrote a regular column for the Times Magazine as well as occasional features like his infamous one announcing that AIDS was no longer a serious health problem.

    I think Vaid's book would still be worth a read, but my favorite of that period remains Michael Warner's reply to Sullivan's book, "The Trouble with Normal."



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 1:29 PM GMT
    I had not read Bawer's review of Vaid's book before. It is hilarious and dreadful! It gives no indication that Bawer read anything more than the flyleaf.

    Having read some of his recent work on Islamization in Europe, one is forced to conclude that the man is an ignoramus. Thankfully, he is presently located in Norway, where he can do little harm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 2:03 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Having read some of [Bruce Bawer's] recent work on Islamization in Europe, one is forced to conclude that the man is an ignoramus. Thankfully, he is presently located in Norway, where he can do little harm.


    I hate to hear you say that. I've read his books While Europe Slept, the one you mention about the Islamification of Europe, and Stealing Jesus.

    I found both to be compelling, eye-opening, and well documented. I'm not sure what the basis of your complaints against Bawer are other than that you personally disagree with his point of view. That's not really a good basis to call someone an ignoramus. He's clearly pretty well read and bright.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 2:40 PM GMT
    I agree that some will be turned off by titling this blog with the word "queer". I'm not at all fond of that term myself.

    However, I think the idea for your blog is good. Putting issues and information out there that people might not otherwise be aware of (especially the more local, small city goings-on) is great for building awareness.

    Providing contact information is definitely beneficial. Some politicians, like Sally Kern, live in a bubble, surrounded by people who think exactly like her. It would do them some good to hear from people who have a different point of view.

    People like her need to realize she's talking about real people and what she says is often untrue and hurtful. I believe people like this need to be confronted for one, and need to be shown the human face of the people they demonize in the abstract.

    Keep up the good work.
  • MisterT

    Posts: 1272

    Mar 25, 2008 3:02 PM GMT
    Queer is just a word, how you take it is your business. I personally take it as odd, or out of the norm.

    As far as pulling together, it can be very good if not violent. Look at the Irish when they started having large numbers in the states, they were really oppressed, couldn't get obs, and were treated like scum. They pulled together and showed their power with the vote, and it worked.

    It really comes down to the way groups handle situations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2008 3:06 PM GMT
    Queer in my opinion is a reclaimed and unifying word. Gay describes homosexual men. LGBT is an acronym and not a word. Plus LGBT fails to include certain groups and also there is the argument of who comes first in the alphabet soup. LGBT, GLBT, TBLG?

    Queer is unifying of sexual and gender minorities.

    http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
  • Powertrip

    Posts: 64

    Mar 25, 2008 7:20 PM GMT
    hippie4lyfe saidQueer in my opinion is a reclaimed and unifying word. Gay describes homosexual men. LGBT is an acronym and not a word. Plus LGBT fails to include certain groups and also there is the argument of who comes first in the alphabet soup. LGBT, GLBT, TBLG?

    Queer is unifying of sexual and gender minorities.

    http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com



    Right there with you... you've also started a great discussion.
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Mar 25, 2008 8:31 PM GMT
    hippie4lyfe saidQueer is unifying of sexual and gender minorities.


    "Uniting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, and Asexual community and responding with activism to those who seek to oppress us"

    The above is a quote from your blog site.

    So why then did you use all those other labels. If as you say, queer is unifying, why did you add all the others?

    Mike
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Mar 25, 2008 8:36 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidI mean assimilationist in the sense of the belief that LGBT people ought to be assimilated into society. The term Legitimationist is perhaps more usual.

    I think we shall have to disagree on the status of the word 'queer'. It is a strong word that implies a rejection of norms; it implies that difference is more than acceptable, it is to be desired and is a source of power; it is a legitimate political statement.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'


    I'm not saying, that gays have to change too be accepted or respected by society. Just stop using offencive terms to describe themselves.