alas wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:29 pm
My gay daughter might agree with you. I asked her once about “gay pride” and she turned up her nose like I had asked her opinion of Trump. I of course questioned that, and she said that gays have to respect the feelings of straights just as they ask to have their own feelings respected and she said that too many people involved with gay pride are purposely offensive by shoving their sexuality into the faces of straights. She said she wouldn’t like it if straights had a parade to brag about their sexual relationships by the same kind of behavior that some gay people use. She said the point shouldn’t be to offend. She said that you have to give homophobes time to adjust to the idea that you are just as human as they are and that you love your partner/spouse just as much as they do and you don’t accomplish that by embarrassing them. Embarrass a homophone and you give them more reason to hate you. You don’t gain love and respect by showing hate and disrespect. Who was more successful with civil rights? Martin Luther King or the rioters throwing bricks?
Eh, I don't know. That's really hard to answer. Such a complicated consideration.
Oppressors rarely give up power and grants rights and opportunities to the oppressed just because they're asked nicely. Playing along and being nice rarely accomplishes anything. I'd like to see any serious academic information on the topic, but my repeated observations in history and things I've seen show me that your question is a false dichotomy. I'm not in favor of violence and am a significant pacifist, but I recognize that without the violent or threat of violence groups, the going along to get along groups make no progress. If it's only violent groups, then there is no demonstration of reasonableness and it's always just stuck with conflict. Calling it a dichotomy and explaining it the way I have is still very wrong, because it's not just about two extremes. To make progress requires a wide variety of approaches, ranging from those that quietly going about living their lives to those that are out and proud and loud.
So, to answer the ending questions: It's really impossible to say and the question itself is erroneous. Martin Luther King Jr. would not have been successful without the more extreme efforts of those like Malcolm X. And Malcolm X wouldn't have succeeded without the more accommodating efforts of MLKJr. It's kind of like asking which is more important in making salt, the sodium or the chloride. And the comparison tends to whitewash MLKJr. He was considered pretty radical in his own right. He wouldn't have been successful without the many people who just went about living their lives and voting and sitting on buses.
There are similar parallels in the struggle for gay rights. Stonewall was out and proud and loud and brash. And violent. It was a seminal event in the struggle, pretty much launching modern American gay rights. Harvey Milk was involved in some of the first big successes for gay rights. He urged gays to come out and let people know about themselves. His tagline, "My name is Harvey Milk—and I want to recruit you", was bold and brash and shocking. Much more so than Matt Gong sharing this photo and describing the story.
The Mormon Church has made the most progress towards gay acceptance not by people asking nicely, but as a result of loud protests, attacks, and pressure. The vocal, directed protests after the passage of Prop 8 made a noticeable difference. Also at the same time, the fine the Church had imposed based upon the efforts of Fred Karger changed their behaviors.
I don't think you can really reach true homophobes in the same way that we continue to see you can't reach racists. Gay rights were won in spite of the homophobes. Success, as much as it is so far, has come from a variety of approaches and factors, including those who are out and proud and brash and vocal.