From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: wearing symbols
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:46:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.172828.12123@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.170109.23193@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> 	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."

    ?!?! This is *bad*? I mean, really. A straight person thought gay
is a *bad* *thing*? If more straight people were thought gay you don't
think there would be a few more howls of protest? A little more thought
into just what exactly it's like to be gay? Oh, puleeze!
 
> >  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"

  To paraphrase a Doritos commercial:

  "Go ahead and co-opt our symbols, we'll make more"

  The same general argument could be made wrt black culture earlier this
century. Do you honestly think that Jazz and Blues etc had *NO* *PART*
in the general civil rights movements? I'll stand by my first statement,
cultural cross polination is powerful tool. If it is kept secret where
it came from whose fault is that?

> >  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.

   Look, there is a big difference between tolerance and open armed
acceptance. We don't even have the former for the most part, expecting
miracles on the later is a little too much wishful thinking for my taste.
When people/companies stop making outright attacks this is progress. It
is not perfection, but it is progress. I would be happy to just see
a tolerant society at this point which does not advocate our extermination
(or admission to mental hospitals). 
 
> 	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.

  So don't patronize them, and tell them so. If IM is really co-opting
gay culture and trying to have it both ways, they deserve a rude awakening.
IM, from everything I've every heard, has gay oriented clientel. If they
are taking us for granted, they deserve to be told that we're not happy
with our wallets. You don't think they'd get the message?

> 	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.

  So whose fault is this? If you think that people/companies are going
to take steps in the right direction, all on their lonesome, with no
external motivation/influence, you are living in a dream world. We
are, in the end, the ones that have to take the initiative to improve
our own lot. If you think the world is going to sit down and have
an abstract intellectual discussion with itself with no proding and
cajoling from us, you've got a significantly more optimistic view
of the way that people operate than I do.
--

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)