“Those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities.” Even more ominously, to Scalia, they have "high disposable income," which gives them "disproportionate political power… to [achieve] not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality.”
I guess Justice Scalia has never seen Rent.
What is it with Conservatives and "fact" about homosexuality? I've heard so much crazy stuff over the years that I have to wonder where it is coming from.
Some of the doozies:
- Gay people were abused as children
- Gay people will abuse your children
- Gayness can be exorcised from a person
- Homosexual Men have uncontrollable lust and will rape you if not locked up
- Being around a homosexual man will turn you homosexual
I have to wonder how many of them are homosexual themselves, and are just really confused and scared. I guess that would explain #5--they're trying to keep away from temptation.
Living near the Castro in SF, one could easily get the impression of great gay wealth, which is there in abundance. Having lived in the South, I've certainly seen the other side of the coin, however.
The article breaks it down where the myth came from pretty well; It’s not so much that gay people all live in affluent urban neighborhoods, it’s that the affluent urbanites have traditionally had more freedom to live openly.
The article makes interesting points, but I think there's more then one thing going on here.
I think there's greater mixing between economic levels in the LGBT community. The result is that it feels like there are more upper middle class and wealthy– the reality, I suspect, is that it's just that straight upper middle class and wealthy folks don't interact much below their class.
Scalia is like Queen Victoria: inconceivable that "gay" also includes lesbians, who have the double whammy of being paid less on average for being women and being paid less/finding it harder to get and keep a job because of prejudice against women who aren't stereotypical straight wives.
Besides, how many people -- these days especially -- rely at least somewhat on family to help them through rough spots? Hard to do when your family has disowned you.
Someone once pointed out to me how this myth has happened in Britain.
- LGBT people move into poor but safer neighbourhood.
- As it is a safer neighbourhood it becomes a desireable place to live.
- House prices go up.
- LGBT people are assumed to be rich if they live in that neighbourhood.
Its not as valid now as it is harder to have the money to buy a house now, and poorer renters are pushed out of desireable areas. Still, LGBT people who are in their 40s may be poorer than people assume.
I have also come across transphobia from left wingers who assume that all transsexual people must be rich to afford surgery.
Purely anecdotal, but I work in an urban library where I have noticed a large portion of our "regulars" are LGBT youth who are living on the streets for a variety of reasons. It is galling to think that there are people out there who honestly think these kids will grow up to be economically advantaged based on their gender identity and/or sexual orientation.
Seriously? I'm saving $1's and $5's out of my paycheck, not $100's for my top surgery. At this rate, I'll qualify for Medicare before I have enough.
When the article states that
"Social scientist have established that gay men are more likely to work as...nurses...and other jobs that ... don’t pay very well."
"Registered Nurse: Salary. Salary Outlook. The BLS reports the median salary for a registered nurse was $65,470 in 2012. The best-paid 10 percent of RNs made more than $94,720" via money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/registered-nurse/salary
65k for one person is low pay? Maybe deep in SFO or NY. But most everywhere else, thats damn fine living.
If I remember correctly, the reasoning behind the transphobia was
- Cosmetic surgery is decadent
- transsexual surgeries are cosmetic
- the working classes cannot afford to be decadent
Any evidence to the contrary, like people doing sex work because it was the only way to get the money, was dismissed as people with bourgeoisie aspiriations.
It was pointless arguing with them.
Balance that against the cost of a nursing education program, the required hours, and the duties involved. Programmers typically get paid more than that without having to get a graduate degree or empty a single bed pan.
"Most everywhere else" will include a lot of areas where LGBT people would live in fear.
You certainly can't win an argument with something that stupid. I applaud your efforts, though.
In contrast, CNAs make ~8-15/hr, and LPNs ~20/hr. They didn't specify what kind of nurse.
RN's in SF are paid more than average. One google result said $95k average. I remember reading that Obstetrics nurses in SF average around $200k, they would be on the high end of RN training.
RN is definitely not a 'low paid' profession. Maybe it was years ago.
LPN is fairly low paid, I think they get about half what RN's get. LPN is also only a 1 year training program, while RN is 2-4 (and probably salaries vary based on that training length as well).
actually LPN's get around $40k it seems, which doesn't seem low for a 1 year post high school education job. More like just a median paycheck.
Is this supposed to be about gays or about all lgbttiqqa people?
Because gays are men, and it's possible [depending on what the wage gap really means and whether male privilege or cis+masculine privileges are the better model] for gays to be richer and privileged-er on the whole than lesbians, than half the bi folks, than most of the trans folks [not even considering how some gays having cis privilege and some trans folks having straight privilege affects this], intersex folks, and so on.
I don't care what sexual identity my affluence has, I just wish it would hang out at my place more often.
I don't think it's supposed to include the "A" at any rate.
Also- what, no "P" for Pansexual?
next page →