|
|
mihangel
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
A while back there was a thread on the murder of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. In this connection, there was an interesting column in the Guardian a week ago (15 May) by Richard Goldstein, editor of Village Voice (Greenwich Village NY?), entitled Queering the Pitch. It discusses the political rise of the conservative gay right (to which Fortuyn of course belonged), and underlines the strength of the movement in the US - apparently, and astonishingly, at least a million gay people voted for Bush. Their strength seems to lie in promoting individualism; and the article has ideas about how the radical gay movement must counter them. Here is a specimen:
"Will a new generation, raised in the sway of American mythologies, accept the gay right's insistence that we are each
solely responsible for our own destiny? Much depends on the
future of another concept central to the democratic left:
empathy. Progressive politics hinges on the ability to
understand how race, class, gender and sexuality intersect to
produce a social hierarchy. Gay liberation draws its meaning
from a similar analysis of the relationship between sexual
repression and social oppression. The very word queer connotes
an affiliation with other outcast groups.
"It is impossible to imagine any other country where such a gay
gay politician could have got as far as Fortuyn did in the
Netherlands. But his saga must be regarded as a sign of what
could occur in other cultures as gay people rise. That is why the advance of gay conservatism underscores the importance of
reinvigorating the rich connections between progressive thought
and queer sensibility."
The whole thing's worth reading (www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,11981,715744,00.html). Can anyone, especially in the US, comment?
PS. I'm a bear of very little brain, and don't know how to make a link in a mail live. Could some kind soul please enlighten me, in the simplest of language?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darren
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 190
|
|
|
I have not read the article, but I will do so when I have a chance. However, I am not sure Pim Fortuyn is a very good example. He was a right wing polition that happens to have been gay. The fact that he was from Holland made it all the more likely given their accepting culture. I read somewhere (I think it was the Economist) that Pim's homosexuality was more an issue for the world media than the Dutch people. Many may not have agreed with him ideology, but I was not aware of him sexual orientation being a problem. I don't live in Holland, and I sure that "the real scoop" would need to come from someone that lives their.
As for George Bush being voted by 1 M gay americans, gays can be in high income brackets just like others. I suspect his promise of tax cuts was part of the reason. I guess it would also be good to know how many gays there are in the US and what percentage of american voters voted. I don't really wan't say much here because I am not very well informed on what even his policy on homosexuals is, although I cannot imagine him embracing the whole thing. Possibly others can comment...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably the majority of those who voted for Bush were either rich or rich and in the closet. I cannot believe that any openly gay person who is not trying to hide their assets would vote conservative and pro-religious right. And that is what Bush represents. He is a good ole boy from Texas with no time for tree lovers, poor, or fairies. Hell, everybody knows that a queer can't even shoot a gun with injuring himself, or at least breaking a nail.
I personally believe you can make statistics say anything you want, and do not give much credence to this story.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
...and an interesting article, though the author never misses an opportunity to ditch a ten-cent word if he can use a ten-dollar word instead!
There's a paradox here. What do we ultimately want to achieve? I'd go for acceptance and integration of gays into society, recognition of the legitimacy of our sexuality and an end to discrimination against us. But as we draw closer to that utopian state of affairs, our sexual orientation becomes less and less important and other aspects of our individualiity - religion, political leanings and so forth - assume greater significance in our lives. Suppose I am a wealthy, right-wing
gay in a stable and accepted relationship; do I worry about sexual discrimination in far-off places or about the state of my share portfolio? The answer is sad, but obvious. So the more we achieve, the less we care about achieving more. This is nothing new - running out of steam in this way has been a characteristic of several other movements for political reform.
Cutting short the rambling, I think that it's certainly true that Fortuyn's sexual orientation was of more interest to the international press than to the Dutch people. It seems equally true that his right-wing views were severely distorted in the interests of newsworthiness; he didn't display many of the neo-Nazi characteristics of Jean Le Pen, or of our home-grown National Front. In fact, even as a lifelong committed left-winger I have no difficulty in appreciating the logic of his arguments, though I would follow them to different conclusions. He was certainly a thought-provoking politician, and we are all diminished by his murder.
Finally, is it really so difficult to envisage an overtly gay politician rising to prominence elsewhere in Europe? It may take a year or two, but I think the time is nigh. There are numerous gay members of the UK Parliament; their sexuality is treated with a degree of indulgence - after all, this is the country that Knighted Elton John! The only unforgivable sin is to be caught out of the closet when pretending to be in it - not a lot of Welsh MP's take evening strolls on Hampstead Heath these days. (sorry, Mihangel! 
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US situation is a bit different. The right in the US seems to have lost all sence of social responsibility. That is somting I cannot agree with. And, I find some folks misguided when it comes to which parties support gay people and issues. Something the "conservatives" don't do at all.
To me "Log cabin Republicans" = CONFUSED!
Kevin
P.S. Sorry I am very political.
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I think you are right, Darren. 
