A Brief Digression on Matters of Representation & Straight Pride
By: John Cherney
Tags: Pride, Queer Theory, Sjw, LGBTQ, Philosophy

I was scrolling through Facebook today and an advertisement came up that showed REI (the outdoor equipment company) acknowledging and celebrating Pride. My initial thought was ‘Impressively done Facebook algorithm. Your targeted advertising creeps me out yet again.’ As I scrolled through the comments on the advertisement (there were about 800 or so) I noticed that all the people seemed to fall into two general categories: Either they appreciated it and praised REI for the move, or they questions why on earth REI felt the need to specifically acknowledge Gay Pride. This sentiment was usually some version of ‘All people need the same equipment, why should I care whether they’re gay or not? Why can’t REI just sell good equipment and leave matters of sexuality out of it!’

This is a sentiment that I’ve seen in a lot of places before. In fact, last year when Wizards of the Coast sent out a press release saying that Tomb of Annihilation (a Dungeons and Dragons book) would be the first to include Queer (*I’m going to use the term ‘queer’ as an umbrella term to include any member of the LGBTQIA+ community, as I find it less tedious) characters, reactions were basically identical: Two groups. Either they praised the inclusion, or they questioned why it was needed at all. ‘D&D has always had gay characters if you wanted them. You could make gay characters for your game. Why did Wizards need to call them out specifically? It feels so forced, this is clearly just them catering to LGBT activities. It doesn’t represent what the majority of their customers wanted.’

Really this sort of mentality has been the basis of discrediting every call for social progress in one way or another (Why is there Black History Month but no White History Month? Why is it acceptable to fight for women’s rights but not men’s? Why do we vilify white people who fought for freedom but not black people?). It’s functionally the same argument levied against the Equality Act (i.e. ‘Straight men don’t have a law that says they can’t be discriminated against. Why should the queer community get ‘extra rights’?’) and in support of the recent ‘Straight Pride Parade’ that is taking place in Boston. I think these view points come down to something pretty basic: To the majority, it may feel like everyone has equal footing in society, but it doesn’t seem that way to us. And, at the risk of seeming egotistical, we know better than you.

I recall points the British philosopher Oliver Thorn made about discussions about the nature of nationalism (specifically ethno-nationalism) and those who support it. To paraphrase, what he says is that very often, white people view terms like ‘criminal, immigrant,’ and ‘illegal’ to be race neutral because those terms have not been levied as attacks against them based on their race. In fact, those terms are not. They’re a political tool used to try and sway public opinion away from sympathizing with people of color. I had a similar experience when I was a college freshman. Most of the other men I lived with used terms like ‘c**sucker’ and ‘fa***t’ (censoring for Facebook) around each other in joking and jocular way. Later in the year, when they found out I was a gay (through a third party) they wondered why I hadn’t told them. Of course, some more sensitive people said it was probably related to the type of language they used, and they were genuinely surprised. It hadn’t occurred to them. They said ‘But those are just words! They don’t mean anything. They’re just words.’ And it’s a similar issue. To straight men those are just words, because they haven’t been used as an attack against them. To threaten or dehumanize them. But for me, when someone has yelled those words across a parking lot, it was a threat. It was an attempt to make me afraid, to chase me out of that space. Oliver Thorn says that minorities need to be listened to when they say their rights are under attack, because when that fire does start, when individual freedoms are being restricted, those with high social status won’t be the first to smell the smoke.

I think there’s a conservative notion floating around now that goes something like ‘Sure Pride was necessary in maybe the 1990’s but now Gay people have all the same rights. Pride Parades are now just an excuse to dress in sexually suggestive ways in public.’ I have to say I disagree with this for several reasons but the big one is this: I don’t think Queer people do enjoy all the same freedoms as cis/heterosexual people do. I don’t tend to view Pride events as a time to ask for specific freedoms. I think their social function is more basic: It’s an opportunity to say ‘I will not be ashamed.’

I don’t mean to claim a struggle that isn’t my own. I’m a white cis man who grew up comfortably middle class, and got to get a higher education. Certainly I, more than many people in the Queer community, am coming at this from a place of great privilege. And I do acknowledge that the LGBT+ community is currently enjoying more acceptances and visibilities now than we have had at any other point in American history (I mean, if we put the Trump Administration aside for a moment). But, in relation to Pride, the relevant question for me is this: Have I felt ashamed of who I am? Yes. And probably not as much as many other queer people, but I have. I have an amazingly supportive and open-minded family. But still, I grew up in a society where every child is assumed to be straight. I grew up feeling like I was less masculine, less of a man because of my orientation. And our society has terrorized me with the notion that being emasculated is the worst thing that can happen to boy, and to a man.

And let me say, specifically in relation to REI and outdoors activities: it’s not a hobby that appears welcoming to queer people. I say this from the perspective of someone whose spent a cumulative 3 weeks hiking on the Appalachian Trail. Most of the men who are serious hikers are not ones I feel safe around as a gay man. It’s a lot of the kind of men who make objectifying and womanizing comments. I’ve never heard an explicitly homophobic comment or had threatening actions taken against me, but I feel the type of people I meet there are those who share this mentality of ‘I’m fine with the gays, as long as I don’t see it or hear it’ and that’s not the kind of person you want to be spending a campsite with in the woods in the middle of nowhere.

A friend of mine, who I’ll call Max, had a similar issue with the Methodist Church a few years ago. Max is a gay man, who is very active in the Christian community. The Methodist Church was very important to him growing up and he found a lot of safety and support there. However, after the church came out against the notion of Gay Marriage, he asked that the leaders of his own church come out with a statement saying that the congregation was welcoming to LGBT+ people. The leaders declined, saying ‘Of course LGBT+ people are welcome in our congregation, however if we release a public statement to that effect it will alienate many others in the congregation and we need to keep their comfort and support as well.’

I think most people can see the basic contradiction here. It’s impossible to both be welcoming in a community both to Queer people and to those who deny that Queer people can be there. From a philosophical standpoint, what you’re trying to have is a contingent of people who are saying, “I exist,” and another contingent saying “No, you don’t,” and that’s simply not a way a social organization can operate.

That’s why I feel things like REI calling out their support for Pride and LGBT+ people using their products is necessary. It’s why I think Pride Parades as still necessary. It’s why we won’t just shut up about equality: It’s doesn’t seem like we’re welcome here yet. And we know how it feels better than you do.