When people accuse you of supporting anti-gay causes, they will be partly right if you have chosen to identify with a group that has been working for anti-gay causes. That’s not quite saying any unjust punishment would be your own fault, yeah? Besides, when this mob comes to burn you alive you should easily be able to turn the tables on them, as strawmen are extremely vulnerable to fire.
1 Like
That doesn’t work. I am a registered Republican. I have never voted for anyone who voted for DOMA. I have probably never voted for any Republican who holds any of the positions you decry, except in the specific case of certain primaries (hello, Christine O’Donell!) where I voted strategically in order to achieve a specific result in the general election (goodbye, Mike Castle!).
You will notice a Republican I voted for featured prominently in the articles below. Mike Ramone ain’t perfect, but his Democratic opponents fit your stereotype of the Republican better than he does which is why I voted for him.
The Delaware Marriage Equality act was spearheaded by Republicans and the loudest opposition was from some of the most solidly Democratic parts of this very blue state. I am a heterosexual Republican and I wrote a lot of letters and talked to a lot of people (“standing on the side of love” is a remarkably effective argument with sincere conservative Christians, BTW). I am speaking from personal experience; the Republican Party is not anti-gay.
Read what I said about Christians again, by the way. You cannot be a Christian, regardless of your claims, unless you believe in the reality of Jesus Christ. I said reality, not divinity. Warning: I also study theology so that discussion can get boring very quick too.
Stereotyping acts to hide the actions of minorities and unfairly stigmatizes real live individuals.
And this shit is not really as academic as we might think. I can say “most Republicans are anti-gay” and nobody is harmed. But if I say “Republicans are anti-gay” I could potentially spread bigotry because someone might believe me and go do something harmful to one of the good Republicans. People vandalize churches and mosques because of stereotyping, you know; my own church has been vandalized. Sikhs and Hindus have been shot because people believed stereotypes spread about Muslims; there is potential for real harm.
So I implore you to go ahead and be precise; I admitted already it makes you less fun at parties, but earnest really is better than hip.
No - of course not. First you need to acknowledge there is a difference between an organization’s “official” policy and the views of its members. So saying the Republican party is XYZ, is different from saying Republicans are XYZ. That might be splitting hairs to some, but I think it’s an important difference.
The larger an organization, the more variety you will find in the views of its members. Rarely do they line up 100% down the line. People usually chose affiliation due to having enough in common with the organization, or they disagree so much with the other side, they support that organization to go against what they disagree with.
One example is gay rights. The party has clearly made anti-gay marriage statements, but as you can read in the liberal survey BB linked to, moderate and libertarian leaning Republicans were less likely to be against it. It is a case of a loud, powerful voice in the party making policy (evangelicals) that don’t necessarily match with a large portion of their membership. I’ve seen several articles of Republicans being frustrated at the direction of the party on some of the issues and how the party alienates their more moderate members (and the right leaning independents). And as per my previous example - there is an official gay arm of the Republican party (as well as a black one, for an organization that is supposedly racist).
I am sure the Democrats aren’t all happy at several of Obama’s policies. I wouldn’t stereotype Democrats as pro-domestic spying or drone attacks.
I said it’d be partly my fault. I chose it. But how will they be right? I spend my time and money advancing the cause of equal rights for gay people, and that somehow is transmuted magically into harm simply because they don’t like another guy who looks like me?
Think about that a little…
Gotta go pick up the wimmenfolk, good night all.
If you were in the UK your dilemma would be more one of local vs national politics.
As you may be supporting a candidate that shares your beliefs, but that gives more power to his organisation which doesn’t share your cause.
Your POTUS isn’t elected based on local elections (at least not directly) - so that doesn’t quite work in your case.
I think politics and religion are sort of special targets for stereotyping.
If you are black, like country music, or are a gamer, you don’t have some official manifesto or doctrine people can point too and go “Aha! You gamers are all misogynist who marginalize women, it says right here!” If Toby Keith says something, people don’t automatically think that the rest of the people in country music and their fans have the same view.
With religion and politics, they do have official doctrines. They have a hierarchy with people in charge making statements. These people are the face of that organization. But the problem is people belong to this groups but not always agree with everything the organization stands for. This is because these organizations evolve and change as time goes on. Leaders change and the direction of an organization can change. Some organizations listen to their members more than others. People continue to support an organization they may not agree with 100% because they feel like it is the best choice out there, or they are actively working to change it.
But I don’t think you can point to these official statements and use it to justify a stereotype, if there is a significant population that doesn’t meet that. Just like I can’t wave a survey of girls that showed 89% of them chose pink as their favorite color and justify the stereotype that girls like pink.
[quote=“Mister44, post:141, topic:13124”]
But I don’t think you can point to these official statements and use it to justify a stereotype, if there is a significant population that doesn’t meet that. Just like I can’t wave a survey of girls that showed 89% of them chose pink as their favorite color and justify the stereotype that girls like pink.
[/quote]It’s not the same. If a Republican decides that gay marriage is great or a Democrat strongly opposes gun control then they can change parties, or even found a new one. Pink-hating girls don’t have those options.
2 Likes
I came to this thread to make a similar point. There seems to be an implication that the activities being espoused on the girls life cover are less worthy than those on the boys life.
Like the author came here to say earlier in the thread, the problem is when the messaging becomes pervasive and people say silly things ‘all girls should like this’ and ‘all boys should like that’, and people sometimes feel trapped by their genders.
My life and my experience is so stereotypically female and I honestly have no idea how much of my life I chose and how much of it was chosen for me!
1 Like
Not directly related to this topic, but I would love to know what a motivational unicorn is. lol
It’s a unicorn who can motivate you and help you get things done.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
