|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
POST AND PARTICIPATE [how to post]
Click to Post
|
|
Dr. Watts talked about the difficulty of changing hearts and minds in a big scale for hot topics. For all panelists: what should the movement do differently to change hearts and minds?
Dr. Egan, after Prop 8 you authored a comprehensive study of all available public and private polling data done during marriage ballot initiative campaigns and concluded that support for marriage does not move significantly during ballot campaigns. Do you believe, and have data to show, that support for marriage can be increased via messaging campaigns before the marriage question comes to the ballot? What are the key take-homes here?
GLAAD & Arcus advocate against using the words "Civil Rights" because of a poll which shows African-Americans feel ownership of that phrase. Of course, the Civil Rights Act now covers "race, color, sex, national origin and religion". And the phrase "civil rights" is unquestionably a legal term as well, referring to the laws society creates, under which we all are entitled to equal protection. So, are we accommodating discrimination when we voluntarily concede a term of this historical magnitude and power? And aren't we missing an opportunity to have an important conversation about equality that the underlying sense of ownership implicates? i.e., Doesn't this advice simply validate the construct of the "other" and the oppression and discrimination that flows from that construct?
Our movement strategy has avoided highlighting the extensive psychological harm caused by discrimination because it plays into the old stereotypes of homosexuality as a mental illness. Doesn't this conflict with the regular process where we take a social wrong (like homo/transphobia), and expose the harm it causes to the victims in order to justify taking action to stop it? Isn't this what other victims of systematic discrimination have done? i.e., Does our message of "we're fine and we're just like you" mask the truth of our suffering, reflect an internalization of old anti-gay tactical impressions, and most importantly, miss the great opportunity to engender the sympathy needed to change hearts and minds (and thus, ultimately undercut our claims for non-discrimination protections)? (For a snap shot on the harm caused by homo/transphobia see: http://www.actonprinciples.org/2011/01/26/the-harm-caused-by-discrimination-against-lgbt-people-a-snap-shot/)
I've never understood why legal change is always juxtaposed to social change as it is in this description. Ultimately isn't seeking legal change simply a structured way to have a social debate about the underlying issue of discrimination? And if it's all about the conversation, doesn't seeking "full equal civil rights" better frame the issue around equality?
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Last Modified 2011-03-21 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
