"House Gay" and "Uncle Tom" are not ok

[Prism]

I'm largely trying to stay out of the Warren mess, but these terms and sentiments keep cropping up in various threads. It's the denigration that just doesn't want to go away, and after two weeks, I just wanted to say a couple things about it.

These terms are not ok. They're derogatory and bigoted and narrow-minded and intolerant and hateful. This goes especially so for our straight friends and allies who may have picked up the notion from some GLBTers that these sentiments should be cheered or supported.

I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of posts from GLBT individuals noting that no one can tell them how to feel, what level of outrage is appropriate, or whether or not they have a "right" to their sentiments about the Rick Warren invitation. While I may disagree with the level of outrage, I defend their right to express it and have a great deal of empathy for why they feel this way. However, terms like house gay and Uncle Tom are designed solely to dictate to certain LGBTers that they are not expressing the "proper" opinion, that if they are gay or lesbian, they are entitled to one opinion, and that opinion is whatever a small, vocal group determines it to be any given week.

Do we even need to discuss how wrong it is for a predominantly white community to casually toss about the most racially charged sentiments and ideas as if they're rhetorical toys to be played with?

Enough already.

We're a diverse community with many diverse opinions, backgrounds, religions, and politics. House Gay and Uncle Tom are meant to get everyone to sit down, shut up, and agree with whatever the loudest, crankiest segment of the community is up to this week. It's absurd, and the people targeted for this mistreatment and hatred are oftentimes some of the most committed people we have to our cause.

What really got me thinking about this was a dear friend of mine, Neil. He's what we jokingly refer to as the "gay general" of my group of friends. We're not all as participatory in our community as we ought to be. So, if there's money or clothes to be donated, a fundraiser to attend, an AIDS walk to participate in, he's usually the one who's making the phone calls to all of us. When Prop 8 became an issue, he's the one we all called to get involved. "What can we do? Neil will know." He's kind of our cat herder. He's 100% devoted to the community and does more in a month than (shamefully) a dozen of us do in a year.

I asked him a few days ago what he thought of the Warren issue. His response was "Not the hill I'd choose to die on." He thought the outrage was counterproductive and missing the point. He shrugged, and we moved on to other conversation.

Yet, were he to express that sentiment here, he'd be one of those evil house gays, those self-loathing, self-hating gays, the Uncle Toms, and a dozen other derogatory terms meant to bully certain GLBTers into silence.

It's not ok. Cut it out. And I hope my fellow DUers, gay and straight, will help me in alerting the those posts that participate in this kind of hatred against gay individuals. It's getting out of hand, it really is.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Umbram]

2. And there you go - OP attacked by the FIRST response. (nt)

[GarbagemanLB]

3. What makes someone a bigot here on DU? Just curious.

[Umbram]

5. progressiver than thou then you've been deputized to label anyone a bigot.

You can however demean others as being self-loathing, self-hating, etc for disagreeing with you, judging them based on their sexual preference and political opinion, with COMPLETE immunity.

It's nice to wear the badge!

[KittyWampus]

4. It really is a few DU'ers at this point stoking the outrage. Congratulations for demonstrating

how it's done.

[Prism]

10. Speaking up against any hatred isn't "tattling"

Interesting choice of words.

As I said in the OP, I've generally lurked through Warrengate because I don't feel I have anything to add that isn't already said a hundred times.

I'm speaking up here, because I haven't seen a strong condemnation of this kind of behavior. In fact, quite the opposite.

[IndianaJones]

11. the sheer volume of hateful posts targeting a minority and you latch onto those? very observant. nt

[Prism]

13. No, you and others have been doing a fine job of things

I tend to only speak up when I have something to add that I think hasn't be said.

I leave adding and weighing everything I've ever said and placing it on the scales of validity to others.

[Umbram]

26. Justifying hateful language by saying it exists elsewhere? Very hypocritical. (nt)

[stillcool]

6. That is the wrong opinion...

to have. Get in lock-step or STFU, and GTFO...don't know if I should add the sarcasm tag or not.

[KittyWampus]

7. Yes, it is a kind of bullying. I am fine with giving people space when they are pissed off.

But when the verbal abuse and bullying continues day after day and the person doing it hides behind "well, I'm angry" it goes from being an understanding, familial relationship to a dysfunctional one.

[Prism]

12. Agreed

While my disappointment in Obama's decision isn't as deep as others, I do understand the source of this outrage. Prop 8 was a devastating defeat for us, and for many the Warren invitation is like salt in the very recent wound. Which is why I've largely stayed away from the debate. Even though I'm not where many of my GLBT brethren are, I'm not going to tell them their sentiments are misplaced. They're understandable.

But the house gay stuff crosses a line, an unjustifiable one.

[Marrah_G]

8. They are both VERY wrong. I always alert when I see it.

Even if someone I like wrote it.

[Prism]

15. Thank you

That's kind of the tough part. I do more lurking than posting (I've read here several times a day for almost four years now) and have come to like and admire many posters even though my interaction with them is limited. It's dismaying to see these sentiments expressed by anyone, but especially those who I otherwise agree and get along with.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Bad arguments and intemperate posters tend to sort themselves...

...out in the process of arguing and posting. I'm not sure we really need more rules ... or even advice... on what's ok and what's not.

DU itself has posting rules. Let's follow them and let everyone else speak for themselves.

[Prism]

19. True enough

I'm not much for being an internet speech cop and don't spend an awful lot of time trying to police every sentiment going around. But in reading through the Warren threads, I kept seeing this stuff crop up, and it seemed to me too many posters, especially straight ones, we're taking in the idea that denigrating gays for having a different opinion was perfectly ok. So I wanted to speak up about that.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

14. Nice

Dude, you are my hero. Probably the best post of this whole Warren debacle.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. ...

:eyes:

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. The correct epithet is "Auntie Tom." "Quisling" works too.

If you are going to demean those of us who would rather not associate with people who collaborate in our mutual oppression and destruction, you can at least get the terms right.

:hi:

[Prism]

21. Cute. Wrong, but cute nonetheless.

Disagreeing on our priorities is not "collaborating in our mutual oppression and destruction". We all have different ideas about the path to equality. Not sharing the level of sentiment, even if the sentiment itself is shared, doesn't mean some people care less about our equality than others.

I really don't understand this. Have we gained so many allies that we now feel free to alienate each other in our struggle?

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. But refusing to speak out against injustice and bigotry is

More, I assert that those GLBT people who defend Obama's choice of Warren are, in fact, quislings.

[Prism]

25. People have different approaches and tactics

While I agree with Obama engaging religious conservatives, I think this venue was inappropriate. I'm disappointed in Obama extending Warren this particular honor.

However, there are other GLBTers out there who do engage in this kind of vigorous inclusion towards religious conservatives. They see it as a method to equality, with the idea that familiarity with gay individuals makes people less apt to condemn us as a whole. This is, partly, what Melissa Etheridge was driving at.

Are they your tactics? No, it doesn't seem so. But I'm not going to denigrate anyone who is sincerely trying to push our rights and interests forward. Even if it's not what I would personally do.

Quisling and other terms belittle that work and those methods. They unnecessarily shut down avenues of potential progress. I understand the anger surrounding Warren, but there is some piss poor targeting happening in the ensuing melee.

[awoke_in_2003]

40. ...

"familiarity with gay individuals makes people less apt to condemn us as a whole"
That is quite true. I believe that you need both the vocal leaders and subtle "familiarites" (for lack of a better term) to make any movement successful. The vocal people keep the issue on the front burner, while the others prove that different does not have to be scary (since we, as a culture, tend to fear differences).

[Political Tiger]

18. Some people lash out just for the sake of

lashing out. It makes them feel better at the expense of others. It's selfishness. I've lost count how many times I've been labeled a "house gay" by people on this board (who have never met me) simply because we disagree on one issue, but maybe if they took the time to get to know me they might think differently. The people who do know me, in real life, not just from a message board, would be surprised to find out I am a "house gay," because they know of the 16 years of activism I have engaged in on behalf of the GLBT community.

I've also been told I'm an "Obama worshiper," that Obama is my "Messiah" and that I have been "drinking the Kool-Aide." And what is this based on according to them? My screen name! IMO, to think you can know all there is to know about a person simply based on a screen name goes way beyond arrogance.

I agree. We need to stop making each other the enemy. We need to remind ourselves that we are not just a bunch of screen names but actual human beings with diverse views and opinions, but ultimately we share the same goal.

[NJmaverick]

20. Frankly, I don't care what your sexual orientation is

I consider the facts and reasons behind the opinions. Those are my criteria, I use before deciding to agree or disagree. As for people, I look at what they say and do, not who they are attracted to. In other words I stongly believe in the golden rule. I want my opinions to be considered by the argument I lay out, in to support them, and I personally want to be judged by my words and actions, not my race, religions, gender or sexual orientation.


The odd part is I thought this was a universal desire at DU. Instead, I am finding that is not the case. There are many DUers that are pushing the idea that various group affiliations is the most important thing.

[cali]

23. thank you.

[IndianaGreen]

24. And proselytizing and telling people they are going to Hell for not believing is NOT OK

Proselytizing is the religious version of "white man's burden," the concept that one's religion is so superior that it must be indoctrinated to what Kipling called the "new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child."

Our society must become civil in that religion is confined to the 4-walls of the homes and places of worship of those that adhere to these ancient myths. Religion cannot be allowed to pollute the public airwaves, nor it can be used as a control mechanism by religious leaders to lead their followers into political action that subverts the concept that we are all equal.

[Prism]

27. It sounds like you're arguing a separate issue

While religious conservatism and discrimination against GLBTers are linked in this country, I don't share your sentiments about religion. There are millions of religious GLBTers in this country. MLK used religion as a vehicle to rights. Although I'm not religious, this idea that gay rights will only advance if we somehow lock religion in a chest and throw it into the sea isn't something I agree with. And that's without noting the sheer impossibility of your desire in this culture and society at this point in time. In a century or two, maybe your idea of the role religion should play will come to be.

For now, however, changing religious sentiment to include our dignity and rights is the path of least resistance and the argument likely to find sympathetic ears.

[ccharles000]

28. One time on DU I was called an "aunt liza"

[Prism]

32. I'd never heard that before.

I've heard an acquaintance use "Aunt Patty" before as well. I assume it's a Simpsons reference, but never asked. A surprising amount of permutations for the sentiment.

[Spectral Music]

29. Do we even need to discuss how wrong it is for a predominantly STRAIGHT community to casually toss

about approvals for someone whose bigotry doesn't touch them?

[Umbram]

30. So, those terms are OK with you because you are unhappy with DU? (nt)

[jonnyblitz]

31. "House Gay" and" Uncle Tom" are definitely NOT OK. I agree.

I can't fucking STAND them. :puke:

[Prism]

33. Blah - deleted

Not sure I understood your post. Better safe than sorry.

[Two Americas]

34. I grant everyone permission

I grant everyone here permission to point it out to me when I shill for the persecutors or oppressors, or betray the working class. I welcome it.

Do not worry about bruising my ego, offending my delicate sensibilities, hurting my feelings, nor challenging or questioning my self-image. Those are very minor when compared to the very real suffering people are enduring. I can put those self-centered concerns aside. In fact, I see putting those self-centered concerns aside, and placing the well being of the persecuted and suffering people around me above my own self interest and comfort and self image is the very essence of any political stance that can even remotely be considered to be in opposition to the extreme right wing.

We are all susceptible to thinking and speaking on behalf of the interests and desires of our tormentors. We have all done it. When I do it, I want people to bring it to my attention.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. I prefer the term "Uncle Roy."

It refers to Roy Cohn. While I understand your post, there is a problem in the gay community with "sellouts," as there is in any community. I don't particularly think any gay person not upset with this appointment is a 'sellout,' or Uncle Roy. I can understand how others might feel if a gay person is not upset with the Warren issue, then that person could be seen as a sellout. Being Jewish, I understand complexity of opinion; "two Jews, three opinions." I also understand how others, in their pain, are looking for solidarity and will lash out because they think others like them "should know better." I do, however, know there are some gay people who are as self-loathing and hate-filled as any homophobe, and those folks are problematic.

[Prism]

36. It's the ease of use that bothers

I certainly do know people who could be categorized as self-loathing. People like that exist, and they are an impediment to our rights (though I tend to feel more pity and sadness towards them than anger).

However, these terms seem to have come into almost casual use for "a fellow gay I don't like nor agree with on an issue." I mean, we're not talking about substantial differences in opinion - merely degrees. "How angry are you about Warren? That's not angry enough, ya house gay."

At some point, it becomes damaging. To move forward, we should be as cohesive as possible, with as many strategies and avenues for progress as we can devise. Limiting it to one acceptable opinion and one acceptable mindset isn't a method for giving us the broadest base and best chance for success. It alienates, divides, and causes rancor among ourselves rather than our opponents.

It may feel good, and I understand the temptation to vent that anger in any way that brings relief, but eventually it can start weakening us - the very last thing we need at the dawn of a new administration whose feet will need holding to the flame.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. It is like anything else.

I haven't seen anyone call any of the two things you said to other DU'ers. If they did, it would be a violation of DU rules (IMO) and therefore deleted. I am not saying it hasn't happened, it just something I have come across during this issue (I have seen it on other issues).

I am all for holding all people's feet to the fire, including Uncle Roy's and those who use the term (or similar ones) too easily.

[littlebit]

45. I've been called a house gay

several times in the last week. Just because I am not as outraged as I should be. I had never heard the term before being called it. I just laughed it off and moved on.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. If it was for not being "outraged," then I disagree with the use.

[Neshanic]

38. Really. Can you list how we describe people that fit that category?

Please list them here, so we are on board with you. Oh and your "General" too.

Don't you think "GAY General" is derogatory?

[Prism]

41. Seriously?

A term of affection for a man, honoring his organizational skills in getting otherwise lackadaisical GLBTers to contribute to the community is derogatory?

As for what words you can use for gays who don't think exactly as you do, you can always try "my fellow gays" or even their first names, if you're so inclined.

[Neshanic]

42. The OP is makingthe rules for what is OK, is "Gay General" Ok by his standards or

drama queen?

Just needing to know his list.

[JuniperLea]

39. It's really sad that this had to be said here...

But you nailed it... the thin liberal veneer has worn off some DUers. It reminds me of how the RW tends to revise etiquette rules when they latch onto something they want to use... like that idiotic song the RNC is pushing and trying it's ugly best to make seem a proper joke.

[political_Dem]

43. Thank you. It also denotes a disdain and a lack of respect against African Americans.

This is most definitely the case when these negative names are used by those in white culture--especially when they don't have an understanding of how both epithets have been used socially, politically, and historically. It's as if these names are wielded by those with a bulging knapsack and little knowledge about privilege in American society.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is yet another aspect that has bothered me to no end.

Ultimately, the "borrowing" of such derogatory symbols of Jim Crow America reflects the use of other groups pillaging from the African-American culture, good or bad. I hate to say this, but this is just as bad as Perry Como covering Stevie Wonder's songs, going all the way to the top of the charts and taking all of the credit.

(I know that there are more current analogies, but this one seems to fit right now.)

It is derogatory and demeaning all the way around for both the GLBTQ community as well as Black Americans.

Now, I'm back on my Warren-less hiatus during the holidays. ;)

[Prism]

48. Good luck to you

I'm hoping today is an aberration and tomorrow I'll return to a Warrenless existence =)

[Unsane]

44. what is a "house gay"?

i've never even heard that term

[Prism]

46. It's a derivative of house slave

In layman's terms, it's someone who accommodates under their oppressor rather than fight for their rights and freedom. House slaves often had better food, clothes, and quarters than field slaves, and were thus perceived as less willing to rock the boat, more willing to go along with the status quo.

In GLBT terms, it's traditionally meant as a derogatory slur against any gay individual who doesn't go along with the prevailing sentiment of the community as expressed in gay media or online. It used to be a term more typically conferred to gay republicans, but over time, pretty much any gay individual who doesn't agree with the sentiments of the group has come in for a "house gay" lashing. Anything even passingly perceived as supposedly siding with straights over gays generally earns the epithet.

It's really just an unsubtle way of calling a gay individual a traitor to his or her people.

[kdpeters]

49. Amen to that. Thank you for being the one to post this.

It had to be said.

[Lil Missy]

50. Thank you. n/t