You are not logged in, Click Here to Login or Click here to create a new account.
Thread: General > Talk > Stonewall

^ Get Rid of these adverts Click here ^
Welcome to altvibe.com Forums
You are currently not logged in and will only be able to view the forums. Click here to Signup. Click here to login.
As a guest you can only view the first 10 posts and in this thread there have been 30 posts.
Thread: #7714
Page: 1
Zeppelin

Posted: 20 Aug 2014
Stonewall
As much as I feel Stonewall is a good thing and some of my favourite celebrity personalities support the slogan. I think "Some people are gay, get over it" is a bad message to be sending out. It's just the wrong way to go about making friends with the world, if anything, it's "on the offensive" as opposed to a handshake to the nation. You don't make friends from slapping them in the face the first time you meet them, so how is this any different?

Discuss.
Gnarlee

Posted: 20 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
I thought that too. However...

It's a trillion times less aggressive than homophobia, which can be a literal slap, punch or kick in the face. That's what this charity deals with on a daily basis, vile bigotry and the victims of such. The slogan is a response to that, and a strong statement decent people can get behind.

It doesn't say gays are special, or need protection, or asks anyone to take time out of their day to do anything for gay people. It's the most basic of statement: some people are gay, it's irrelevant, it's harmless, stop wasting your time and everyone else's by pretending this is a problem. Get over it!

It is insane to think a calmer slogan will somehow get through homophobes. If bigots have already decided homosexuality is a crime, in 2014, then nothing will get through to them. So the slogan makes it clear that it's very much a situation they've created for themselves.

I sometimes feel that many of us are so wrapped up in our small social circles of open-minded friends, social networks and clubs, that we forget there's a world of hate and aggression out there. Sports is one of the hardest areas to come out in without being brutalised by fans, and Russia brutalises homosexuals literally.

Still, I think their latest campaign has changed in the last year or so. I've seen black and white posters consisting of two people, a police, nurse, builder or other worker, and the phrase 'one of these people is gay'. I thought those were cool, showing that homosexuals are just people and you probably meet them all the time without realising it.

I would say that's a better campaign. And yet, it wasn't quite as eye catching as the red.
Zeppelin

Posted: 20 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Unfortunately, I don't believe you can combat a minority of violent homophobic abusers and keep relatively normal people onside by just blasting out a "We're gay, fuck you" vibe on a poster... it's a little disheartening that a more thought hasn't gone into it. It seems to me that it's predominantly run by older people who (bless their hearts for trying to do good) - haven't got half a clue how to communicate with people between the ages of say 12 and 25 (which lets face it, is the general area of bullying and serious adult abuse)

I 100% concur with your last paragraph. I also saw that campaign around on the tubes and I thought it was really good! When a billboard is 10 feet wide and ten foot in front of you at a tube station, it doesn't have to be big bod colours, because in reality, we all ready those adverts anyway...

I thought that particular style of advertising positively in that fashion was quite an intelligent.


Gnarlee

Posted: 20 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
They don't say "we're gay, fuck you". They don't even insinuate that. They're saying 'some' people are gay, not 'we'. If you think "get over it!" is too harsh, fine, I can see that. But don't pretend they're saying "fuck you". They're not. That's just you saying that.

And shit man, patronising much? "bless their hearts for trying", "they haven't got half a clue how to communicate", "general area of bullying".

They do tons of good work, in parliament, schools, businesses, through publications and talks. They run a free information service for anyone who wants to report hate crime, to learn about adoption, parenting rights or how to take action against bullying. That happens to people of ANY AGE.

And what are you doing, besides pissing and moaning and demanding attention? Go away, realise how disrespectful and ignorant you're being, then come back when you've grown up.
Zeppelin

Posted: 21 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Well, thankyou for taking it upon your self to hand my ass to me. I wasn't trying in any way to stir that kind of reaction. I'm aware Stonewall 'does' do some great things, and has changed some peoples life in a great way! My point on a personal level was that to me it does feel like its message alienates more people than it welcomes. It was only a thought, but never mind... It was probably a conversation worth bringing up with somebody face to face, not over a forum...
leon1990

Posted: 21 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
@Zeppelin, I completely agree with your stance on this and @Gnarlee, I'm very surprised at your extremely hostile and uncalled for response. Talk about over the top!

tomeedubya

Posted: 21 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
It's to be expected really. These types of organisations tend to be lead by the most aggressive and militant of the supporters.
newmy

Posted: 21 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
I'd rather "aggressive" and "militant" (Simply standing up for gay rights is militant and aggressive now? Oh well) people standing up for us than no one at all...
Zeppelin

Posted: 21 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Sure, it's nice to have people standing for us. My query was about the message. Let's not get too bogged down with who is a militant... We can leave that to the news... "Up next, Sir Ian McKellen joins Jihadists and shits rainbows over Libia..."
Gnarlee

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
@newmy knows what's up.

This is an open rant now.

People want to be superior about everything. Everything. Politics and media and celebrity and anyone who sits next to us on a train, everyone's got a smartass opinion. Including me. Especially me. But charity? Criticising an LGBT charity whilst doing nothing ourselves? Nope. Nope nope nope.

You do not impose your limited worldview on an organisation that has been fighting homophobia longer than you've been watching porn. You do not patronise a worthy cause because you're dissatisfied with a poster design. We were born into a world where homosexuality was legal, at a time where wider society was accepting of it, and we've lived to see gay marriage legalised before we were 30. We are so, so lucky to live in the time we do. The country we do.

And yet, I still daren't kiss my boyfriend in public. I can recall 3 times I kissed a guy in public and someone muttered 'batty boy', or tutted, or pointed and stared and reacted with disgust. I remember sitting in the cafeteria at university and hearing people behind me saying "Oh yuck, those two guys outside just kissed." They weren't talking about me and it was 4 or 5 years ago now, and yet I still think to myself "Why didn't I say something? Why didn't I tell them I was gay? Why didn't I put them on the spot like that? Why didn't I ask them to explain themselves?"

Some people are gay, and those unhappy about that can get over it. I will not ask them nicely to be friends.

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/contact_us/

There's a link to their contact details. Anyone unhappy with their work, phone up and let them know.
Zeppelin

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Totally out of proportion.
stewiestrapon

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Compare "Some people are gay, get over it" with "batty boy" and "oh yuck" as @Gnarlee said, and more extreme "you need to be gassed" which a group of guys actually said to a friend of mine this week. There's quite a difference.

Someone once said to me "most people don't have a problem with gays as long as they (the gays) don't bring it around them".

What is this "it" that you're not supposed to bring around "most people"?

To be okay with something "as long as" is to not be okay with it.

Compare with "I don't have a problem with black people as long as they don't bring it around me. You know, the black". How utterly ridiculous does that sound? Yet so many -SO MANY- people get away with EXACTLY that attitude towards gay people. There is so much disguised "I'm not homophobic, but..." attitudes in the world.

I'm an open minded person, I hate coming over all superior, but no matter how hard I look I can't seem to work out this "it" thing we are doing that offends "most people" so much? Trying to live our lives?

Oldish, but relevant and definitely worth 10 tiny minutes of everyone's time

leon1990

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
There's a difference between "bring it around them" and "rub their faces in it" which latter attitude I might add, has contributed to people who otherwise didn't feel strongly about the race issue (or the gay one either) becoming alienated. Weren't you the one, @Gnarlee who once said you wouldn't attend a Gay Pride for this very reason?
newmy

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Unfortunately to a lot of people the notion of having ones "face rubbed in it" extends to simple acts of affection such as holding hands, hugging, kissing, taking a photo together, romantic meal etc etc...

I feel like straight couples rub my face in their straightness day in and day out. I don't mind them doing it, but I'm absolutely disgusted by it when they do it out in public or near me. They can do whatever they want to do so long as it's behind closed doors and they have an underlying sense of shame about the whole thing.

Yeah. That's what that sounds like.
leon1990

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
@newmy, I think you know I didn't mean that. I meant actions or statements (like the get over it thing) which convey an underlying sense of hostility. Hugging each other etc hardly qualifies as hostility towards the casual beholder.
stewiestrapon

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
Whether you say 'bring it around them' or 'rub their faces in it', you still haven't defined what 'it' actually is?

You can't set a condition on which you will be okay with something. This suggests that you are not actually okay with it.

Of course taking issue with some of the things you may catch people doing at Prides or in certain gay clubs that you would have an equal problem with catching straight people doing is a totally different thing. But really, how often do you see that on a day to day basis?

My friend indiscriminately calls everyone "darling". I've been around him several times when straight men have taken offense. I'm sure they'd call that him "rubbing it in their face". But why should he have to make a conscious effort to use a different word when addressing someone he *thinks* might have a problem with it?

Then you're perpetuating the "us" and "them", because you start looking at people and wondering how much you can "get away with" being yourself.

It's ridiculous.
leon1990

Posted: 22 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
"It" is the fact that someone is gay, I think is the point, as the discussion started off by an objection to the exhortation "Some people are gay, get over it". Some of us thought that this had a hostile, not to say alienating tone to it. I know there are plenty homophobic people about still, but you won't reduce that number by a comment like that, which is quite confrontational, and instead, you might well alienate people who hardly gave a thought to whether you are gay or not but regarded you as a person!
Gnarlee

Posted: 27 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall

Zeppelin

Posted: 28 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
I cannot believe I am doing this... photo FuckoffLee.jpg
Gnarlee

Posted: 28 Aug 2014
Re: Stonewall
First of all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So, thanks for that.

Secondly, the proclamation that 'we are all human' is a great way to appear "good" whilst avoiding all the inconvenient murky details of every day bigotry. It's a common concept, usually pushed by those who'd like to pretend discrimination doesn't exist. It's the suggestion that when someone talks about the homophobia they've faced, or the racism, sexism... then they are somehow being selfish. "How dare you only talk about your specific problem, we're all human. You're the real homophobe/sexist/racist."

It dismisses historic and institutionalised discrimination people face. It dimisses people's personal experience of hatred and bigotry. And by telling these people that they should ignore all that and think of themselves as human, you're not helping as much as you might think. But you're probably making yourself feel really noble and clever.

Yes, we're all human. That's most definitely the point. But you get to that point by reminding the people that insist otherwise. The extremists groups, the willfully ignorant and hateful, the people that insist homosexuality is a sin or a crime. You don't get there by telling the biggest LGBT charity in the country that they don't know what they're talking about on the basis that you don't like the poster.

You said the general area of bullying is under 25 and Stonewall's problem is not addressing that. I'd be interested to know how your opinion develops at 26.
Wait! There are 20 more posts in this thread. You need to signup or sign in to view them.


Page: 1

Results per page: 20 [Change]

You must be signed in to post replies.
General
Altvibe News and Info
Regional
Sex and Stuff
International

^ Get Rid of these adverts Click here ^