From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: wearing symbols
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:28:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.170109.23193@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.153253.2613@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>> timmy_b@cowpas.waffle.atl.ga.us (Tim Barnes) writes:
>> >I just noticed tonight that International Male is selling Freedom Rings

>> 
>> 	That's all we need - more co-opting of symbols of gay pride, etc.

>> 
>> 	And of course this will be lapped up too.  It's no NICE when
>> companies can capitalize on such things and make a profit.  Amerika:

>
>  Why? I cannot see this as anything as a net plus. When society starts
>co-opting symbols and culture from other cultures, isn't this a sign
>that we are "winning"? Cultural cross pollination  seems like an enormous
>benefit -- it increases awareness, and eventually respect/tolerance.
>  If people unwittingly adopt these symbols/culture without knowing where
>they came from, just whose fault is that? This is a seperate issue, I think. 

	Oh puhleese.  OK let's spell it out.

	If the symbols are recognized by groups and individuals then
we benefit from the recognition.  IF the symbols are co-opted by
groups and individuals, their meaning becomes watered down to the point
where the symbolism is lost.

	Were something like the Freedom Rings the latest fashion craze
of 1992-1993, conversations like this would be common:

	"Oh I see you're wearing the Fashion Rings.  Are you gay
or lesbian or bisexual?"
	"Um, no."
	"Oh so then you support gay/lesbian/bi rights?"
	"Well, no, not really"
	"So why are you wearing them?"
	"Huh, well everyone is wearing them!  They look cool."
	"But they're a symbol of gay pride!"
	"No they're not, I mean like everyone is wearing them,
it doesn't mean anything."

	"... OH."

>  IMHO, this just another front in a large range of things that will
>gain us tolerance/respect. There is no one answer to this problem. Using
>whatever presents us to stay visible as human beings is a net plus,
>especially positive things. Right?

	Sure as long as the message stays intact.  The only message from 
IM is "these things are cool... we'll make lots of $$$ marketing them"

>> 	I suppose asking everyone to call IM and demand that the
>> profits from the freedom ring sales go to a non-profit gay organziation
>> is too much to ask, huh?

>  Well, don't discount the avenue for making a buck. Greed, as much
>as you may detest it, is a powerful equalizer. This really reminds me
>of a point that Jojo made a while back about Hollywood: Hollywood isn't
>white, it isn't black; it's green. How long can a companies cynically
>profit on other groups while hypocritally detesting them?

	Oh, let's see...

	Phillip Morris (who makes Miller, etc.)
	Coors (who donates to homophobic orgs but also advertizes
		in gay magazines)
	Virtually anyone who can either 1) keep it a secret
		or 2) choose a market where the market is
		apathetic to the point they are being used.

> I just can't
>see it as being anything other than a temporary situation. Something
>that needs action to bring to a head, for certain, but temporary nonetheless.
>  A good example of this sort of thing is that queer marketing survey
>and Toyota's experiment in Australia. Aren't these _Good_Things_? They
>sure seem good to me. 

	Apples and oranges.  In this example, they are visibly targeting
the GBLO*-population.  Were IM to even USE the "g" and "l" words they'd
score a LOT higher IMHO.  But they don't because there's no reason to:
if they do they might lose some non-GBLO* $$$... if they don't then
they stand to lose very little because (nudge nudge wink wink) everyone
KNOWS that lotsa kwirs buy IM stuff so who cares?  We're letting them
have it both ways.  How *generous* of us.

>  I think you are being a bit too cynical here Bob.

	I think you are being a lot more clueless than I am being
cynical.  You've just argued the whole point:  IM cares more about
making $$$ (which is why they are in business) than about our
pride/rights/etc.  I can understand that given IM is a corporate
entity.  What I don't understand is how "we" feel that it is OK
for them to use "us" without giving us anything back, except
the privelege to buy something that came out of our community in the first 
place.

	I'm sure that there are lots of gay/lesbian/bisexual
enterpreneurs who could stand to make a lot of $$$ from the same
sales and would put a lot back into our community.  For the
little we get from the mainstream, why are we so bent on contributing
to a status quo that keeps us oppressed?

BBC