When will we drop the phrase "first openly gay....."?

[+ glennnn]

So, there's no point in protesting, talking, writing, contributing, pushing? Progress takes as long as it takes regardless of what we do?

 

For me, progress takes as long as we let it take. I'm out and, for me, that's progress. And I did it instead of waiting for progress to happen.

 

I'm not sure what I am now arguing about. I will be happy when we make enough progress to willingly accept ourselves and each other more completely and fairly.

[Lookin]

I hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near, and I want acceptance for us all before I exit!

 

If not, you could always take it up with The First Openly Gay Angel. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

http://img457.ph.126.net/wo4RrZ3ncgF5NMTuy6Lo4Q==/1577948719440411462.jpg

[+ glennnn]

What a GOOD idea!!!!!

[rvwnsd]

So, there's no point in protesting, talking, writing, contributing, pushing?...

I did not say that.

 

... Progress takes as long as it takes regardless of what we do?...

I also did not say that.

 

Let's take another look at what I did say:

I don't think your thread was foolish. What I think is folly is expecting progress to hurry up. Progress takes as long as it takes.

 

If it is meant to be, you will see it within your lifetime. In fact, in many places (such as the US Army) you already have. If memory serves, the Republican-controlled legislature just confirmed an "out" gay man to be Secretary of the Army. His sexual orientation apparently means very little to them.

 

Nowhere in that quote do the words "regardless of what we do" appear.

 

We can influence the speed at which we make progress. One of the ways in which we can do that is by recognizing when progress has been made. If I may remind you, this thread was started by you complaining that the media kept mentioning (a/k/a "recognizing") that the new Secretary of the Army is the first openly gay man to hold the job. By reminding us that an openly gay man has been a senior military advisor for several years and now holds this job, the media reminds us that (in this case) sexual orientation does not make a bit of difference in terms of a person's ability to lead. Continuing those reminders is how opinions and beliefs are influenced. Influencing opinions and beliefs prompts change. However, opinions and beliefs do not change overnight, or in a month, or in six months. Opinions and beliefs change over time.

 

For me, progress takes as long as we let it take. I'm out and, for me, that's progress. And I did it instead of waiting for progress to happen....

 

I'd like to point out that for you it took somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 years, which, for you, is exactly as long as it needed to take. Not a second too short and not a second too long.

[+ glennnn]

I see, understand and accept your points. Thank you.

[+ purplekow]

I see, understand and accept your points. Thank you.

Glennn you are a gentleman.

[marylander1940]

Being out is an individual choice. I too an tired of hearing about the first gay this or the first black that or the first female other thing. I suppose it means something to someone but not to be. We have had a gay president, a black President and hopefully, the first female president. Her first initiative should be stopping the use of the "the first" and I will be the first white, Catholic, bi, male to support her.

 

A gay president? James Buchanan?

 

I'm tired of a lot of to

 

I'm tired of hearing the phrase "first openly gay" whatever (pro hockey player, US Congressperson, Secretary of the Army, etc) whenever a gay or lesbian person achieves some signal honor, job or opportunity. It reminds me of the decades of "First African American" whatever. (First black, pro baseball player, first black opera star, first black congresswoman, etc) Why can't we just drop both descriptors, or a least drop "first and openly and just say "gay" or "black" if we must. I think it is demeaning, as if the person under discussion has had something to hide and being "open" is amazing and unusual. He is gay. She is lesbian. They are black. It's a fact, jack. Get over it!

 

Aren't you tired of men who are gay "a block away" calling themselves straight or closeted? I know so many of them, the closeted melted around them when they became teenager, yet they keep talking about pretending to be straight.

[longtime lurker]

My thread was foolish. Wanting something that can't be. Just have to wait.

 

No it is not. We all feel that way even if we are younger than you.

 

Just think how long it took to get rid of the Jim Crow laws in this country... only to be replaced by the Bathroom Laws. Makes no difference. Same shit, different "group" singled out... and religion was used just as much in the past to keep the races segregated as it is today for all of the anti-gay and anti-transgender "stuff". Only few remember that fact today. (I should add that the "holy text" has never been fair with gender equality either, since a father is even given permission to stone his daughter to death if she isn't a virgin.)

 

And we are still not there yet. Trump was throwing out Black Lives Matters demonstrators in his rallies because more-than-enough Americans STILL want to keep the races separate and think "they" are getting too many "privileges" already. Statistics have repeatedly shown that a person's skin shade increases their chances of getting incarcerated in this country for crimes not committed... and even pulled over in their vehicle.

 

Also since you exposed your age a few times, remember that... at the time of you were born... The Third Reich was putting into force their "Final Solution". In America, Japanese Americans were herded into camps regardless if they were a genuine threat to security or not.... and the military was still racially segregated.

 

Yet even today, the conservative news "heads" (and I am referring to YOU, Bill O'Reilly) try their best to "smokescreen" their bigotry in a lot of colorful terms like "secular progressives" (code word for those who don't associate Jesus with the word "holiday"). Even antisemitism has never officially ended. It just hibernated for a few decades and is waiting for the right moment to be fleshed out.

 

I guess it is common human nature to want to be as much like everybody else... or the IMAGE of everybody else. The Kinsey studies of the 1940s and '50s pretty much confirmed that only a small percentage of the population is completely heterosexual or homosexual... and the majority are somewhere in-between because they are attracted to INDIVIDUAL partners and INDIVIDUAL experiences. Yet society forces all of us to conform a certain way whether we like it or not. Therefore, everybody must wear a "label" so that the people who are fussy about whom they associate with can identify accordingly. Once you accept publicly that you should be labeled "gay" based on activities nobody has any business observing anyway and have nothing to do with THEM unless they are somebody you have sex with, then you have to decide what your next label should be... "top", "bottom" or "versatile" regardless whether or not you have any interest in doing anything "anal" since, after all, isn't that what ALL "gays" do? At least according to the homophobics.

 

I fully agree with you that it is exhausting how it is STILL important... and will remain so for decades to come... that everybody gets a certain stamp on their fore-head.

 

Funny thing about the James Buchanan talk. Nobody knows anything about his bedroom habits because people kept their ALL of their sex lives intensely private back then. It was only later in the 19th century through the time of McCarthyism that being "homosexual" was Such A Big Deal. Probably half of all Americans in the 19th century "experimented" with stuff that would put the present day GOP politicians in a state of rage. Yet they didn't fuss over Leviticus as much back then like today because slavery was promoted in the very same texts and there was a major push to end it regardless whether God approved or not.

[+ purplekow]

George Washington, the first straight President of the United States, is credited with saying: " I cannot lie. It was I that chopped down that cherry tree." Since George broke that "first" cherry, it has been easy to use obvious characteristics as a source of an initial adjective in an introductory sentence. To my mind, it really reflects lazy thinking and easy writing.

 

Harry Truman was described as the first openly left handed President of the United States, though there are rumors of other left handed Presidents, in particular James Garfield and Herbert Hoover. Now, most of us hardly notice that 5 of the last 7 Presidents have been left handed. Of course, both Ford and Reagan were thought of as going both ways, so that number may be inflated.

 

Just as being straight and being left handed no longer require a qualifier, some day, journalists and other writers will stop using the lazy man's adjective of gay and black. But then , we will be faced with the first female President, the first openly gay and proud President, the first Hispanic President, the first female Hispanic President, the first Vegan President, the first billionaire President (hopefully in the distant future) etc.

[bostonman]

But then , we will be faced with the first female President, the first openly gay and proud President, the first Hispanic President, the first female Hispanic President, the first Vegan President, the first billionaire President (hopefully in the distant future) etc.

 

Which brings me to a point I was wanting to make regardless - that we're a society that's rather obsessed by "firsts" (and other similar statistics) no matter what.

 

To add to Purplekow's presidential musings - if Hillary gets elected, she will not only be the first female President, but Bill Clinton will be the first "first man" (or whatever term they come up with to replace "first lady"). Not only that, but it will be the first time a President's spouse was also President, etc. And all of this will be a BIG DEAL simply because it's a first.

 

If (shudder) the presumptive Republican nominee wins instead, we will have the first Twitter President (or should that be Twit President?)

 

But Glennnn, I do understand your basic complaint - it would be great if eventually we don't have to make such special notice of one's orientation or gender or race, etc. Unfortunately I think that's a long way away. It's a habit of human nature that I think is going to be awfully hard to break.

[mike carey]

I understand the feeling that we give too much prominence to many of the 'first xxx' in any post or role, but some of it is still important as a demonstration (yet again) that a member of a particular group can do whatever it is. The question is, when has it happened often enough that it's no longer newsworthy. If the main voices in the wider community playing down the achievements of women or LGBTI people are those of misogynists and hompohobes who resent any progress, there is still a place for us to celebrate the 'firsts'.

 

An anecdote, when Julia Gillard was replaced as prime minister, I heard someone (journalist or talk-back caller or what, I can't recall) recount how their 5-year old when told it had happened, responded 'Do you mean a man can be prime minister?'