Medical News Today: "Prejudice Study Finds Gay Is The New Black"

[Mike 03]

A study into prejudice has found homophobic attitudes are more common than racism. The study will be presented today, 16th January 2009, at the British Psychological Society's Division of Occupational Psychology annual conference in Blackpool.

In the study, carried out by Occupational Psychology consultancy Shire Professional, 60 people ranging in age from 18 to 65 years were tested on their attitudes towards six areas of diversity - age, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability and sexual orientation.


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135773.php

This story validates a lot of what people have been saying here for the past few months.

ON EDIT:

This is sad but hardly unexpected. I wish I could say this was a surprise, but it's just not. But it is validating to see it in print (at least for me, to get it out in the open and admit it).

:cry:

[AntiFascist]

1. So it is ok to use the term "Uncle Tom" then? n/t

[Mike 03]

2. That is not a term I would ever use. All of these hatreds are ugly, IMO.

It's all despicable.

[AntiFascist]

3. Is there another concise way to describe the behavior of...

willing to compromise with the religious right in order to beg for scraps?

[Jamastiene]

5. Lap dogs? n/t

[Mike 03]

7. Sorry, I must be dense, but I am having trouble understanding your point.

Perhaps I phrased something poorly, which wouldn't be unusual. :-)

[AntiFascist]

9. You were just pointing out that the derogatory use of the term "Uncle Tom" can be hateful....

I'm trying to say that this is sometimes needed as a kick in the butt so that (some) gays and lesbians might realize that they need to be standing up for their rights.

[Mike 03]

10. No, you raised the use of that term, "Uncle Tom."

I didn't mention that term at all.

[AntiFascist]

12. I know that...

but in Post #2 you indicated that it was a hateful term that you would never use. I'm trying to point out why I WOULD use it in some cases.

[AntiFascist]

4. So are you accusing Harriet Beecher Stowe of being hateful?!!

According to Lincoln, she was responsible for starting the Civil War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom's_Cabin

Maybe we need "Uncle Tom's Log Cabin"

[Mike 03]

6. Huh? "Hateful"?

I don't know, but I think anyone who would "hate" someone because of his or her sexual orientation would be a hateful person, just as anyone who would "hate" someone because he/she is black or hispanic or has a particular religion would be hateful.

That's just how I was raised.

What am I missing?

Isn't it a hateful thing to hate someone for having a trait, characteristic or anything that is just innate or a part of them?

[AntiFascist]

8. Therein lies the problem....

I agree that negative stereotypes are bad, but sometimes it is useful to point out the negative stereotype when you see it repeatedly so that those conforming to the stereotype might do some introspection. Being an "Uncle Tom", in the very negative sense, is not a hopeless condition when someone is made aware of it.

[Mike 03]

11. I enjoy a good discussion, but you are raising a strawman by

introducing the issue of the term "Uncle Tom." Nobody here but you began to talk about that term.

No one else, that I have seen, is obsessed with the term "Uncle Tom" here, in this discussion of discrimination against the Gay community. And I have not seen a good explanation of why you have even brought it up.

Please excuse me, but I don't want to waste another moment in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I raised.

I have a lot of things to do tonight.

Be well.

[AntiFascist]

13. OK, but technically this is just a sub-thread...

maybe you should consider the context to be: Gay is the new Black, possibly because the LGBT community has been asleep for a few years and allowed ourselves to be put in this predicament.

[AntiFascist]

17. I don't want to beat the issue to death, but allow me to elaborate...

Stowe's character of Uncle Tom was a perfect Christian gentlemen. He was always ready to turn the other cheek and he would rather die himself rather than hurt someone else at the command of his masters. In this sense, he was intended as a hero, but he also ended up dying as a Christ-figure. It is the passive personality of the "Uncle Tom" which I believe the African-American community eventually overcame, by facing the negative stereotype and, in the words of MLK, "we shall overcome". They rose up against the establishment, something that would have been out of character for Stowe's Uncle Tom.

[mitchtv]

14. I prefer "Aunt Bea"

:hide:

[AntiFascist]

15. Alice the Housekeeper n/t

[bluedawg12]

16. Gay was and remains one of the last groups that's OK to openly denigrate.

I wonder how many of those people in the UK actually knew someone who was gay and still found it acceptable to nurture their own prejudice?

[Chovexani]

18. Can we PLEASE retire this bullshit. Please? God.

"_______ is the new black" implies that racism has somehow been solved and now it's time to move on to the next "ism". Obama's election does not mean racism is over. Oprah being rich does not mean racism is over.

It's offensive and stupid and I really wish people would cut the shit out. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by putting forth one group as "more oppressed" than another group, it's obnoxious when straight PoCs do it and it's obnoxious when white LGBT do it, not to mention the fact that it completely ignores intersectionality between groups. There is a term for all of this, it's called Oppression Olympics. Please do not play into it. The only group that benefits from it is the one running the system that is oppressing all of us while we are fighting over who has it worse.

http://www.o-dub.com/weblog/2004/02/one-more-thing-about-oppression.html

[AntiFascist]

19. People are drawing comparisons because of the protests over Prop 8....

A recent cover of the Advocate states: "Gay is the New Black" and the cover article is all about the "civil rights struggle" that became dominant after Prop 8. There is also an interesting companion article that discusses where the lines are drawn within Black culture. According to Archbishop Carl Bean, founder and leader of the Unity Fellowship Church Movement (a majority black-LGBT denomination), he "isn't surprised many black pastors supported the antigay amendment pushed by white social conservatives. "That is the painful history of the black church," he says, adding that many black preachers opposed Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s and '60s. The Reverend Joseph H. Jackson, then-president of the National Baptist Convention, the nation's dominant black Baptist group, "called him 'Martin Luther Coon' and actively fought against him." "

[yardwork]

21. I agree, but I also think it's important to talk about it here.

The article exists. I think it's better to post the article here and then discuss why the author of the article and the headline writer are wrong, than to ignore the instances of this phrase being used. It's not the first time we've seen it. For some reason this phrase is out there, and I agree that it's stupid.

As to why it's stupid, everything you say is true. This kind of thing is an effort by the privileged majority to pit minorities against one another. The reason is obvious. If all the various minority groups - labor, people of color, queer folks, non-Christians, and so forth - banded together in a truly strong coalition, the privileged majority would no longer be the majority and they'd lose all their special rights and privileges pretty damn quick!

That should be our goal. A rainbow coalition. It won't be formed by fighting over whose oppressions are worst or pretending that racism no longer exists or encouraging minorities to feel resentment toward other minorities.

Worst of all - where does it leave black queer folk? The entire approach is divisive, it's wrong, and it needs to be discussed and roundly condemned.

[bluedawg12]

25. Let's discuss the study and agree that the title of the article sucks.

Here are the facts as I know them.

An article in Medical News Today summarized a study out of the UK, not the USA.

The article summarized a paper, that was given on 16th January 2009, at the British Psychological Society's Division of Occupational Psychology annual conference in Blackpool.

“In the study, carried out by Occupational Psychology consultancy Shire Professional, 60 people ranging in age from 18 to 65 years were tested on their attitudes towards six areas of diversity - age, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability and sexual orientation.”

They found, in this study, that attitudes as tested in 60 people in the UK, regarding diversity, showed:

The main prejudice that was revealed related to sexual orientation.

Results from the tests classified:

seven per cent of the participants as being strongly anti-gay
three percent as being anti-Lesbian,
35 per cent displayed some anti-gay predilection
41 per cent some anti-lesbian prejudice

I am not at all certain in the difference between “prediliction”, I suppose it means tendency, versus, “prejudice” which means a pre-formed judgment, hence, a bias.

The authors further stated, that:

These negative implicit attitudes were stronger than those for age, gender, religion, disability or even ethnic origin.

28 per cent of the sample showed some prejudice towards Asian people
25 per cent against Black people
18 per cent against South East Asian people.

Dr Jones said: "Without detracting from the seriousness of the prejudice that still exists against people because of their ethnic origin, the results of our study suggest that being gay or lesbian could be 'the new black' when it comes to being a victim of prejudice."

That’s the problem. The choice of some British researcher, who while claiming not to be flippant, came off editorializing and flippant. His statement became the unfortunate title to the OP, which, may or may not have the same offensive tone in the UK as in the USA, but here, in the USA, with our specific history, it is clearly offensive in that it appears to make light of racial prejudice, and also, has a distasteful, wink and nod feel to it, as if “being the new black,” was somehow a clever turn of phrase by half and dismissive of unresolved racial issues in the US and also implied a kind of back handed prize for being the most discriminated against. Hence, the title blows.

The following is important because it sheds some light on the particular emotional mind set that may be triggered to commit hate crimes:

“The four or five per cent with strong prejudices would find their attitudes often affect their behaviour.”

That four or five percent with strong prejudices is troubling, as it is a high percentage of negative feelings for one segment of the population to harbor against another.

The 15 to 20 per cent with 'mid-range' prejudices are probably unaware of their attitude, but their thoughts and feelings towards gay or lesbian people will probably surface when they are emotional, stressed, frustrated or threatened.”

Even more alarming is the 15-20% who could be provoked into expressing anti-gay sentiments, of which they were not even aware.

Finally two important bits:

"Our prejudices are the result of our experiences with other people and exposure to the media.”

Bingo! Culturally reinforced bigotry is dangerous.
To some extent outreach, if that is what is meant by: experiences with other people, is futile. Ditto bingo.

“This categorisation is a shortcut, which takes place automatically and at great speed.”

That is also what Malcom Gladwell wrote about in his book, Blink, about how we form decisions about others in about 15-30 seconds of meeting them.

Gladwell, BTW, used the tragic story of the police over reaction and shooting of Amadu Dialu in his book and how it worked on a racial level, in a negative way. Dialu, a man from Caribbean African heritage, was shot in a gang way something like 28 times, as the officers swore he was reaching for his gun. There was no gun. It was his wallet.

“However, very strong negative associations often influence our behaviour towards other people formed mainly on their group membership.”

Here, they state the obvious, when we decide someone is part of a “group” we don’t like, negative associations follow and we pre-judge.

Now for the good news. People can outgrow prejudice, they can take responsibility for their attitudes and of course, the on-going work in society to NOT tolerate hate speech and bigotted speech. It is not as the right wing would have us believe, a nanny State and hyper-PC-ism, it is the basis of a smoothly functioning, cohesive society.

"Once people are aware that they have certain prejudices it's important that they 'break the prejudice habit'- taking control of them so that they don't impact on their behaviour. You can do this by examining your thoughts or actions to make sure that your prejudices aren't driving them", Dr Jones continued.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135773.php

[Zuiderelle]

23. Good points all. And good link too, Oppression Olympics.

That's exactly the problem with this. It's insulting to African Americans to insinuate that somehow oppression of them has been eclipsed by oppression of gay Americans. And it's insulting to gay people who have been fighting for equality for decades. I'm not the new anything. I am the same old unequal and bigoted against gay American I've always been.

It's ridiculous to compare in this "competitive" way, oppression against any minority to oppression against another minority. They are different, neither eclipses the other, they live side-by-side (and together in parallel for gay Blacks, of course).

It's insidious because it's tempting to say "Yeah! See? We have it bad!" Well, we do, so what? Gay is not the new Black. Gay is the same old Gay it always has been, for centuries. It's not the new anything.

[lightningandsnow]

27. I wish I could recommend individual posts.

[Mike 03]

20. Maybe I should not have posted this.

I am truly sorry if posting this story was offensive to anyone here. I love the folks here and would never intentionally do anything to hurt anyone here.

The reason I thought this story was worth posting:

1. Medical News Today is one of the most highly respected websites in the world when it comes to posting the results of studies.

2. I felt it validated some of the opinions, concerns and beliefs that had been expressed here in this forum and in GD over the past few months since that hideous proposition was passed.

3. It lends credence to the idea that the GLBT fight is a Civil Rights issue. By comparing your fight to the fight of the Blacks, it seems it would totally validate your idea that this is just another instance of denying a "group" their Constitutional Rights.

Again, I would feel awful if my post hurt anyone here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only reason I posted it, is it seemed in total agreement with some of the issues we have discussed here.

My deepest apologies if this offended anyone!!!!!

Mike

[AntiFascist]

22. Let me try to clarify my position...

and again I apologize if I'm dominating your thread. These are not "strawman" arguments.

I think there is a tendency on behalf of the No on 8 leadership to blame everything that has happened purely on bigotry, and on those who are siding with the bigots. While bigotry clearly is the enemy, I also feel that this should be a wake-up-call for the LGBT community to stand up against the "establishment" and speak out for our rights on a grassroots basis. We can't just sit back and expect Obama to fight our battles for us, because frankly, he has already become part of the problem. I look forward to future progress on behalf of the Obama Administration, but it will not come about by sitting around waiting for more "pretty words".

I very much appreciate your DU posts Mike 03 and I didn't intend anything to be critical of the work you are doing for us by posting these threads, I just wanted to defend my position.

[Zuiderelle]

24. You were right to post it. You didn't write it after all. That would get you flamed.

If you see offense here, it's offense to the article itself and the premise that "Gay is the new Black." I felt the same taken-aback-ness when I heard Tina Fey say "Bitch is the New Black" on SNL regarding Hillary Clinton. I even laughed. It was funny, and it had a solidarity feel to it. But then I realized how destructive such a comparison is.

There's nothing wrong with posting it here though. That's what this forum is for. And hopefully people will read the response to the article and maybe come away with a deeper understanding about why it's offensive.

[bluedawg12]

26. It takes about 2 seconds to form an opinion when you meet someone.

First impressions take about 2 seconds and likely influenced by what we think we know about that person by the group we think they come from, i.e., pre-judgment.

I mentioned a book by Malcolm Gladwell called "Blink" that talks about that critical first 2 seconds.

Here is a link and an interesting read from Malcolm Gladwell.

BTW, I have Gladwell's book and have seen him interviewed on Charlie Rose, he is a brilliant man.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell
..........

http://www.gladwell.com/blink/

"It's a book about rapid cognition, about the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye. When you meet someone for the first time, or walk into a house you are thinking of buying, or read the first few sentences of a book, your mind takes about two seconds to jump to a series of conclusions. Well, "Blink" is a book about those two seconds, because I think those instant conclusions that we reach are really powerful and really important and, occasionally, really good.

<snip>

Where did you get the idea for "Blink"?

Believe it or not, it's because I decided, a few years ago, to grow my hair long. If you look at the author photo on my last book, "The Tipping Point," you'll see that it used to be cut very short and conservatively. But, on a whim, I let it grow wild, as it had been when I was teenager. Immediately, in very small but significant ways, my life changed. I started getting speeding tickets all the time--and I had never gotten any before. I started getting pulled out of airport security lines for special attention. And one day, while walking along 14th Street in downtown Manhattan, a police van pulled up on the sidewalk, and three officers jumped out. They were looking, it turned out, for a rapist, and the rapist, they said, looked a lot like me. They pulled out the sketch and the description. I looked at it, and pointed out to them as nicely as I could that in fact the rapist looked nothing at all like me. He was much taller, and much heavier, and about fifteen years younger (and, I added, in a largely futile attempt at humor, not nearly as good-looking.) All we had in common was a large head of curly hair. After twenty minutes or so, the officers finally agreed with me, and let me go. On a scale of things, I realize this was a trivial misunderstanding. African-Americans in the United State suffer indignities far worse than this all the time. But what struck me was how even more subtle and absurd the stereotyping was in my case: this wasn't about something really obvious like skin color, or age, or height, or weight. It was just about hair. Something about the first impression created by my hair derailed every other consideration in the hunt for the rapist, and the impression formed in those first two seconds exerted a powerful hold over the officers' thinking over the next twenty minutes. That episode on the street got me thinking about the weird power of first impressions.

"