Criticisms of HRC and the issues of addressing every civil rights issue at the same time.

[nextdrinksonme]

I've just read lots of criticisms of the HRC and the red = sign going around. The most prevalent ones are that the HRC has a problematic history regarding trans* folks and queer POC. Both of these I agree are issues. If you want to protect the rights of the QUILTBAG, you have to protect the rights of every letter and every person represented by

Comments

[1_2_suckerpunch]

Yes.

[tediousandbrief]

I hadn't heard about HRC's apparent position on transsexual/misgendered people until recently. I find that kinda shocking.

"That marriage is a conservative, misogynistic institution made for cisgendered Christian middle class white people and negatively affects everyone who is not represented by that."

I rarely hear it, but I dislike that argument. It doesn't seem like you're making it, but marriage predates Christianity and occurs in other religions as well. I don't get what "white people" or "the middle class" would have to do with it....it just seems like such a bad argument. (Understanding that you seem to be agreeing?)

There is a book I've wanted to read for a few years now that, from what I've been told, you may like. An LJ friend of mine's law professor wrote it. Nancy Polikoff's Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law at http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Straight-Gay-Marriage-Families/dp/ ( ... )

[nextdrinksonme]

Yep, you're right to assume that I disagree with that statement, and for all of the reasons you mentioned. I can see an argument towards *weddings* having conservative and misogynistic undertones and being a privilege for the middle class as they tend to cost an arm and a leg, as well as the gender norms and traditions that go along with it (such as the woman being pressured to change her name and give up her single identity). And, of course, the reason it came about in the first place. However, when it comes to the modern meaning in this culture (love, not a woman as property) and legal rights therein, those tend to go across the board, afaik (for legal citizens--undocumented immigrants have their own set of legal issues in that department, I would assume

[hashishinahooka]

Marriage itself does not equal a Christian middle class White institution, but marriage as it exists in the West is. It was defined by Christian upper-class White morality, and is still limited by that today.

[hashishinahooka]

The way I see it is the problem is not that people don't think you can be for multiple causes at a time. The problem is when people exclude those causes from their campaigns or outright shit on them like HRC is doing. I also strongly disagree that you can't do everything at once. While you can't get all changes made at once, you can actively support all of them and working to make small steps in all of them. So, marriage equality is the closest to happening. That doesn't mean that we can't also be working to make sure that everyone has access to rights that married couples do. Honestly, it might be a good idea to be actively fighting for both because the two causes can support each other. I actually don't see the good in having one without the other.

One at a time social justice really feels like, "Wait til we get ours, and then, we'll come back for you when we have time."

[nextdrinksonme]

I agree, which is why I said that there should be a continual dialogue and push for reform and made a point to say that you can support more than one cause at the same time. I was referring to the fact that the government can't look at and address more than one or two cases at the same time. That just isn't possible.

The criticisms I was reading through, did say that supporting this one cause was to the detriment of every other cause and have read a lot of people saying that they don't care about this issue because it isn't their issue, which is kind of showing the exact same attitude they're criticizing. I understand what they're trying to say, but it's an unrealistic expectation that everything can happen at one time. And I don't think, at all, that focusing on this right now lessens the severity of anything else. If the issue on the forefront were school closings in low income areas, I wouldn't be saying "fuck them, what about abortion laws?" simply because the school issue doesn't directly affect me, which seems to be the

[hashishinahooka]

See, I don't see things in terms of "necessary evil." If the HRC aren't doing a good job of supporting everyone that's a part of the marriage equality cause, then, fuck them. I don't like this idea of having to be a part of a fucked up system in order to change it. But that's why people break of and start their own causes. That's why there is womanism. Feminists ignore WOC and talk over them, so WOC have to do their own version of feminism that looks at their unique circumstances

[nextdrinksonme]

I never said that anyone had to support them. I just don't think it's right to demonize those who do and say that it automatically shows them as bad people or irresponsible allies or that they don't care about other issues and causes. You can be a Christian and show a cross and not be in support of the WBC. You can also be pro marriage equality for everyone and use that = sign in your profile and not be in support of everything the HRC does