Pride and corporate sponsorship

[Archangel]

There’s been some ado about some corporate sponsors backing out on various pride events this year, largely assumed to be reactionary to the ... crackdown on DEI programs. While I don’t like that crackdown and I don’t want to make this a discussion about partisan politics, I will say that I think it might be good for Pride if big corporate money isn’t involved. I just think consumerism fueled the toxic side of gay culture. It also pushed an image (or at least supported it) that glorified the glamour boys in an almost high-school-popularity-contest* sort of way. I never felt an affinity with Pride to begin with, but the image that has of late been pushed to the forefront of the public eye (even of the less stereotypical gay culture elements) has seemed alienating to me. I don’t mourn its financial troubles. 
 

*https://youtu.be/jrxI_euTX4A?si=e-pioBHoXjomFOIc

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

2 hours ago, Archangel said:

There’s been some ado about some corporate sponsors backing out on various pride events this year, largely assumed to be reactionary to the ... crackdown on DEI programs. While I don’t like that crackdown and I don’t want to make this a discussion about partisan politics, I will say that I think it might be good for Pride if big corporate money isn’t involved. I just think consumerism fueled the toxic side of gay culture. It also pushed an image (or at least supported it) that glorified the glamour boys in an almost high-school-popularity-contest* sort of way. I never felt an affinity with Pride to begin with, but the image that has of late been pushed to the forefront of the public eye (even of the less stereotypical gay culture elements) has seemed alienating to me. I don’t mourn its financial troubles. 
 

*https://youtu.be/jrxI_euTX4A?si=e-pioBHoXjomFOIc

I agree.  Businesses and people should only contribute or participate because they want to, and not because there's a government mandate or incentive giving priority to companies who do.

[pubic_assistance]

52 minutes ago, Archangel said:

I just think consumerism fueled the toxic side of gay culture. It also pushed an image (or at least supported it) that glorified the glamour boys in an almost high-school-popularity-contest* sort of way.

NYC gay pride in the 90s was a lot of cute guys waving gay flags and then heading to the Pier to dance and then to the sex clubs to fuck everyone they could get their hands on. Those glamour boys were the LEAST toxic thing about gay pride marches...and the ONLY reason I ever attended.

NOW it's full of hideous lesbians and things I can't even begin to identify their pronouns, let alone what species they belong to. I don't know that Corporate sponsors turned it into the Circus of Monsters it is today...but if Lite-beer commercials are responsible then I say bring back the cute guys and get rid of the sponsors !

 

Edited March 21 by pubic_assistance
spelling

[+ DrownedBoy]

I was waiting for the companies to pull out. Values have never trumped profits for that long. A lot of German corporations threw their Jewish employees under the bus when contracts were on the line.

[mike carey]

Moderator's Note

Ladies and gentlemen, although there is an obvious political undercurrent to the thread, the OP noted that he did not want the thread to be a discussion about politics. Accordingly, please refrain from discussing the politics directly in the thread, there is plenty of scope for a discussion on the raw financial reasons for changes to sponsorship. We have removed some text that ventured into the political realm.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I had drafted this post earlier but it didn't post at the time. Apologies for it being out of sequence.

[maninsoma]

I moved to San Francisco in the mid 1980s so started going to the Pride Parade and festival annually at that time.  Because it was the height of the AIDS epidemic, a lot of the groups and floats that were in the parade were associated with that issue.  There were also many cars carrying politicians, floats sponsored by local businesses that were connected to the community (bars, shows, etc).  There was very little in the way of corporate presence.  The same held true of the festival with the exception of the food booths and a few things like a local chiropractor hoping to drum up business and a luxury car raffle.  The people who attended the festivities were largely people from the community.  I don't know when the tide actually turned, but at some point the parade grew in length and began to resemble a long infomercial.  Probably the worst memory I have is watching a very large Apple contingent, all wearing the same white t-shirt with a rainbow Apple logo but with nothing else specifically related to the community.  On the one hand it was nice to see that Apple employees generally felt like the cause was worth participating in, but on the other hand as a spectator it was incredibly boring.  And because there was so much of this, the parade simply became over-long, boring, and not community focused.  The same thing happened to the festival.  I also started to notice that a sizable number of festival goers weren't even community members or allies -- there were guys walking around holding a woman's hand, ogling other women and not men, and sometimes mocking effeminate men.  I don't know if they came just to express their homophobia or if it was just another street party for them where they could get wasted in public.  I really lost interest in the entire thing.

These days I more likely to attend a Pride festival in another city (Oakland, San Jose) because their festivals still seem more community focused than San Francisco's.

I write all of this to say that I don't care if San Francisco loses some of its corporate sponsors since, in my mind, that extra money and presence didn't really help the day's events.

[Archangel]

8 hours ago, maninsoma said:

it was just another street party for them where they could get wasted in public.  I really lost interest in the entire thing.

I felt that way after a few years of Philly Outfest. It seems like an opportunity not to celebrate being who you are but a competition for who can be the most outlandishly sartorially provocative in public and/or overtly exhibitionist. That goes for women as well as men – and everything in between. Are you really wanting me to believe that going shirtless with electrical tape “pasties” really is who you are? 🤨 

8 hours ago, maninsoma said:

I write all of this to say that I don't care if San Francisco loses some of its corporate sponsors since, in my mind, that extra money and presence didn't really help the day's events.

They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We might say similar things about money. Money corrupts and unlimited money corrupts unlimitedly.

God, I sound like a ln old fart! 😂