Does the Gay lobby have a monopoly on discrimination?

ROAAAR

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps you missed my question

Exactly not everyone is evident.

donfers

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Bald people should wear hats so they're not flaunting their baldness in public.

I know a bald guy who got abuse in public once. He was wearing a hat at the time but had previously been hatless so he invited it on himself I think.

Bald people do get abuse, as do ginger-haired people, fat people, those with learning difficulties, the disabled etc.

Basically anything that is outside of the norm, unusual or atypical

That's the world we live in

Is it right? No

Will it always happen? Yes

Will the self-congratulatory nature of certain elements in these minorities for "addressing" these issues change much? Not really, the demographic who tend to throw the abuse at the unusual ones don't tend to be swayed by "people of the year" awards or articles in the Irish Times about how we should all constantly monitor ourselves and others so that we can "address" these issues

However if it makes these people feel empowered, or that they're doing something worthwhile then for that alone I suppose it's a good thing - but let's not delude ourselves that this is going to change the world, it is, as ever with these kind of things, tokenistic and more to do with self-justification and validation rather than a reflection of some sudden upheavel in socio-political norms

gormdubhgorm

floggg wrote: »

And which is another reason for the stupidity of the post. Do you really think anybody went "I'm not too sure about gay marriage, but that Graham Norton guy wears some pretty flamboyant shirts so it must be ok".

There are many reasons why lgbt rights issues have made progress in recent years, and I'd be happy to discuss them in another thread.

This thread however is a blatant effort by the OP to have some sort of dig, so there is little point in trying to engage with him.

Maybe you should re-read my first post of this thread and my reply to a comment you made about one of my other posts. I never mentioned "flamboyant shirts" you are deliberately trying to create another issue.

I notice you did not comment on how many of the LGBT are highly intelligent and very well educated and other minority groups are not so fortunate. But this obviously does not suit your narrative.

This thread was NOT created to have a dig at the gay community but legitimately question how the amount of attention received seems disproportionate to other minority groups. Also to ask what are the reasons and can other minority groups learn from how the LGBT operates to gain attention for their own groups issues?

padd b1975

DeVore wrote: »

Basic personal dislike, acted out upon an individual solely for the reason that they are part of a demographic is literally the definition of discrimination.

Oh I agree 100%.

But no one should run the risk of being accused of discrimination just because of a clash of personalities.

hotmail.com

padd b1975 wrote: »

Oh I agree 100%.

But no one should run the risk of being accused of discrimination just because of a clash of personalities.

Why not?

Beano

donfers wrote: »

Bald people do get abuse, as do ginger-haired people, fat people, those with learning difficulties, the disabled etc.

Basically anything that is outside of the norm, unusual or atypical

That's the world we live in

Is it right? No

Will it always happen? Yes

Will the self-congratulatory nature of certain elements in these minorities for "addressing" these issues change much? Not really, the demographic who tend to throw the abuse at the unusual ones don't tend to be swayed by "people of the year" awards or articles in the Irish Times about how we should all constantly monitor ourselves and others so that we can "address" these issues

However if it makes these people feel empowered, or that they're doing something worthwhile then for that alone I suppose it's a good thing - but let's not delude ourselves that this is going to change the world, it is, as ever with these kind of things, tokenistic and more to do with self-justification and validation rather than a reflection of some sudden upheavel in socio-political normals

this "why bother" attitude is pathetic. why bother doing anything? why bother getting out of bed in the morning? its only going to be the same as yesterday, right?


funnily enough all this 'tokenism' it does seem to make a difference. Maybe it wont make a difference to the entrenched troglodytes. but it might make a difference to younger people who are just starting to form their own ideas of what society should be like. their attitudes to people not like them might be better than ours. we can but hope. All this takes a while but its getting there. homophobia has gone from being pretty much the default for people in this country to being more and more an exception. I agree that it wont cause a sudden upheaval but it is improving things little by little. we have made great strides in this country regarding discrimination (remember when it is was a criminal offence to be gay?) and the more people speak out the more strides we will make.

Beano

padd b1975 wrote: »

Oh I agree 100%.

But no one should run the risk of being accused of discrimination just because of a clash of personalities.

the verbal abuse that prompted the original speech was not a "clash of personalities". it was homophobia.

gormdubhgorm

donfers wrote: »

Bald people do get abuse, as do ginger-haired people, fat people, those with learning difficulties, the disabled etc.

Basically anything that is outside of the norm, unusual or atypical

That's the world we live in

Is it right? No

Will it always happen? Yes

Will the self-congratulatory nature of certain elements in these minorities for "addressing" these issues change much? Not really, the demographic who tend to throw the abuse at the unusual ones don't tend to be swayed by "people of the year" awards or articles in the Irish Times about how we should all constantly monitor ourselves and others so that we can "address" these issues

However if it makes these people feel empowered, or that they're doing something worthwhile then for that alone I suppose it's a good thing - but let's not delude ourselves that this is going to change the world, it is, as ever with these kind of things, tokenistic and more to do with self-justification and validation rather than a reflection of some sudden upheavel in socio-political normals

This is an excellent point. If there was something genuine or noteworthy change for example Norris succeeding in his campaign to have homosexuality decriminalised it would be completely different.

People will always get abuse on the streets from gob****es on a day to day basis for various reasons. But as you said if people victimised feel empowered by it or better for it let them at it.

In a lot of situations involving a minority it can be extremely difficult to thread the line between tokenistic/cringe worthy/sanctimonious v real societal change and acceptance.

But maybe it is necessary to start at the tokenistic stage keep the thought in the mainstream mind and gradually move up "through the gears" to real change?

padd b1975

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why not?

You Ok with being falsely accused of something?

Most people aren't.

AnonoBoy

donfers wrote: »

Bald people do get abuse, as do ginger-haired people, fat people, those with learning difficulties, the disabled etc.

Baldies are still allowed marry, as are fatties, and disablies.

We're talking about institutionalised discrimination, not just abuse on the street.

But some people seem to be wilfully missing the point of why Panti won the award.

You can lead a horse to water.

efb

You only see what your eyes want to see

gormdubhgorm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Baldies are still allowed marry, as are fatties, and disablies.

We're talking about institutionalised discrimination, not just abuse on the street.

But some people seem to be wilfully missing the point of why Panti won the award.

You can lead a horse to water.

There is institutionalised discrimination for the other minority groups that I mentioned too.

But as I said the main emphasis by Norris and the award seem to be centered around how a person who happened to be gay got abuse on the street. Then made a speech which involved mention of said abuse.

Annasopra

Beano wrote: »

this "why bother" attitude is pathetic. why bother doing anything? why bother getting out of bed in the morning? its only going to be the same as yesterday, right?


funnily enough all this 'tokenism' it does seem to make a difference. Maybe it wont make a difference to the entrenched troglodytes. but it might make a difference to younger people who are just starting to form their own ideas of what society should be like. their attitudes to people not like them might be better than ours. we can but hope. All this takes a while but its getting there. homophobia has gone from being pretty much the default for people in this country to being more and more an exception. I agree that it wont cause a sudden upheaval but it is improving things little by little. we have made great strides in this country regarding discrimination (remember when it is was a criminal offence to be gay?) and the more people speak out the more strides we will make.

I agree. If we all said - "why bother" - we would never have decriminalised gay male sex. We would never have bought in equality legislation. We would never have bought in civil partnership. We would be living in the dark ages of 1983 where people like Declan Flynn continue to be murdered, where only 30 people are confident enough to express their pride on Dublin Streets, where there is a constant atmosphere of acceptable homophobia; legal, cultural, instutional, where there is demand for lgbt publications to be censored.

Sorry but no - I will bother. I wont be treated like scum in my own country and stay quiet. I wont accept legalised and institutionalised homophobia. I will continue to challenge cultural homophobia and transphobia

Annasopra

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There is institutionalised discrimination for the other minority groups that I mentioned too.

But as I said the main emphasis by Norris and the award seem to be centered around how a person who happened to be gay got abuse on the street. Then made a speech which involved mention of said abuse.

So what? Should we all just stay silent and cover up the abuse?

AnonoBoy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There is institutionalised discrimination for the other minority groups that I mentioned too.

Nothing as basic as being denied the right to marry though.

gormdubhgorm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Nothing as basic as being denied the right to marry though.

What about access to buildings/education? Travellers, Disabled etc.

Also it seems if this is the only thing that the Gay community has to achieved they are not that badly off. It seems to me that the politicians always go where there are votes to had. This is a vote getting issue and will be achieved.

The profile of the Gay community is the strongest and most vocal of any minority group. As another poster said it would be wonderful if all minority groups had that amount of publicity and awareness.

I think as far as minority groups go the LGBT community does not realise what a privileged position it is in. It carries tremendous say and punches way above its weight.

gormdubhgorm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So what? Should we all just stay silent and cover up the abuse?

No I never said that it is the attitude that "oh look someone called me names and I deserve a medal for it" attitude.

Ironically Mohammed Ali threw away his Olympic Medal. One day when he was wearing the medal he was denied service at a Louisville restaurant. After it he threw his medal into the Ohio River.

I think awards for any minority should be given for bonafide achievement not just pointing out that a person received abuse. Again that is just an opinion.

But I do admire how much attention and notoriety was made of the issue. It is how to maximise political capital. Other minority groups should follow suit if this is the way to get noticed.

bb1234567

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

When I saw a bit of the Irish people of the year awards and Panti Bliss got an award. I was thinking oh it must have been something amazing. Stephen Fry and David Norris were wheeled out. It was all a big celebration.

What was the award given for? A speech about how abuse was hurled at him at traffic lights in town!

I decided to look it up nothing major was said
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-26075280

I thought about this and wondered about how little coverage other minority groups receive -

1) Travellers - in contrast they do not receive any positive press. Mainly do to lack of infiltration to the national media. Also travelers do not end up having the same educational opportunities.

2) Minority racial groups - in Ireland the profile has increased people know that racism is wrong since the Cosby show in the 1980's so nothing new there. Old news. Sean O Halpin, Jayo and Lee Chin have helped enlighten Irish minds further in the GAA. Much like what Donal Og Cusack has done for the Gay community.

3) People with disabilities - very low profile in the national media it is almost an afterthought because there are no real votes in it. Maybe medical cards that is about it.

If Panti Bliss was in any other of these three minority groups above would it have attracted as much attention? To say that someone hurled abuse at a traveller/disabled person/or minority race does not seem trendy enough for the national media.

Granted everybody wants to be treated equally. But why is it the case that one group in particular seems to get all the airtime for the most innocuous of things.

The only lobby in Ireland that I can think of that is louder is the Taxi Union of Ireland!

It is the disproportionate volume that one group gets over another that annoys me. A monopoly on playing the oppressed victim.

Hmm thats true.. one reason could be because lgbt are a considerably bigger minority group that those groups you mentioned.
Travellers are less than 1% of the population.
I would imagine severely disabled people would be less than 1% also.
Nonwhite people make up 5% of the population. And while that is a large group, the majorty of nonwhite people came to ireland relatively recently (last 20 years) while lgbt have always been here.
And lgbt make up about 10% of the population

gormdubhgorm

bb1234567 wrote: »

Hmm thats true.. one reason could be because lgbt are a considerably bigger minority group that those groups you mentioned.
Travellers are less than 1% of the population.
I would imagine severely disabled people would be less than 1% also.
Nonwhite people make up 5% of the population. And while that is a large group, the majorty of nonwhite people came to ireland relatively recently (last 20 years) while lgbt have always been here.
And lgbt make up about 10% of the population

These are the only numbers for each group I could find

The 2006 census in the Republic of Ireland reported the number of Irish Travellers as 22,369.
http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/Tabl...ReportId=75490

From the CSO website Persons, males and females, at work aged 15 years and over with a disability classified by age group and percentage disabled, 2011. is 112,502
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/heal...edisabled2011/

2006
A study of the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the ESRI, found that 2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publica...n%20Report.pdf
If the above extrapolated this equates to roughly 150000 who identify as gay. I could not find any definitive figure.

2011
The number of non-nationals in Ireland
"The number of non-Irish nationals living in Ireland grew from 224,261 persons in 2002 to 544,357 in 2011, an increase of 143 per cent over the nine year period." from:
http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasecensus2011profile6migrationanddiversity/

I know I did not find the break of each ethnic group but it gives some kind of idea. Obviously there would be some overlap/differences between categories of each mentioned. Like there could be an Irish person born and bred in Ireland whose parents are non-nationals. That person might also be Gay and a disabled traveller but I do not have these breakdowns.

ixoy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think as far as minority groups go the LGBT community does not realise what a privileged position it is in. It carries tremendous say and punches way above its weight.

Given I can't marry my boyfriend and can't feel free to safely express affection publicly, you'll excuse me if I don't feel privileged.

bb1234567

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

These are the only numbers for each group I could find

The 2006 census in the Republic of Ireland reported the number of Irish Travellers as 22,369.
http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/Tabl...ReportId=75490

From the CSO website Persons, males and females, at work aged 15 years and over with a disability classified by age group and percentage disabled, 2011. is 112,502
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/heal...edisabled2011/

2006
A study of the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the ESRI, found that 2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publica...n%20Report.pdf
If the above extrapolated this equates to roughly 150000 who identify as gay. I could not find any definitive figure.

2011
The number of non-nationals in Ireland
"The number of non-Irish nationals living in Ireland grew from 224,261 persons in 2002 to 544,357 in 2011, an increase of 143 per cent over the nine year period." from:
http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasecensus2011profile6migrationanddiversity/

I know I did not find the break of each ethnic group but it gives some kind of idea.

But for the disablities figure, who does that include? who do we consider part of the disabled community? If I use a hearing aid or Im blind in one eye or use crutches to walk, I am disabled but I doubt people without very severe disabilites would really consider themselves disabled.

The homosexual figures wouldnt include the huge amounts of people in the closet, people who choose not to identify as lgbt etc...

And non nationals doesnt mean theyre not white!

DeadHand

Links234 wrote: »

Oh please, LGBT people who are outraged are just as bad as those who hate us? We get a lot of ****, so pardon us because some LGBT people aren't calm, collected and articulated all of the time, and may act outraged, hurt or slighted by some of the **** thrown their way. I'll get onto gay HQ and let them know about this grave injustice, LGBT can't be getting all uppity and showing emotion or things like that, why that makes them just as bad as all the anti-LGBT hatemongers out there.

Oh, dear...

You picked me up wrong.

I didn't equate the two. I didn't introduce a scale of nastiness as I thought it would be fairly obvious who was the worse type of person. I simply said neither contributes positively to the discussion.

Maybe I should have made that a little clearer for the more excitable among us.

I never said any outraged LGBT person is a cretin, we all get outraged and I accept LGBT people have more to be outraged about than most, I was commenting on the definite element within that community who zealously seek to be offended by anything and everything... Sort of like you did with my post.

Never mind, I suppose ranting is easier than actually reading posts or asking me to clarify what I meant and feels much, much better. Hope it felt good.

gormdubhgorm

bb1234567 wrote: »

But for the disablities figure, who does that include? who do we consider part of the disabled community? If I use a hearing aid or Im blind in one eye or use crutches to walk, I am disabled but I doubt people without very severe disabilites would really consider themselves disabled.

The homosexual figures wouldnt include the huge amounts of people in the closet, people who choose not to identify as lgbt etc...

And non nationals doesnt mean theyre not white!

I never said the figures were 100% accurate however they do give a guideline.

I assume the figures for disabled people are those who identify as a disabled person in the census or from those in receipt of state benefits. http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/health/personsmalesandfemalesatworkaged15yearsandoverwithadisabilityclassifiedbyagegroupandpercentagedisabled2011/ This link works other one did not.

I also realise all non-nationals are non-white. However I do not plan to go through each individual country and route through stats and find out their ethnic make up. The soccer is on!

Also if people are locked in closet I doubt ringing the fire brigade to break them out would help! I suppose you can only speculate on those figures. As I said there was no definitive figure I could find.

As I said these figures are a guidline the most accurate figure would be of travellers as it is a question the census.

Venus In Furs

There is some frightening anti-gay sentiment in Russia and a few African countries - in light of this, I can completely understand gay people being more forthright with concerns about how they are viewed.

cloudatlas

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

"straight life is so ingrained and accepted that you don't bat an eye lid when that is mentioned" People do bat an eyelid when it comes to the other minority groups that I mentioned.

I am not against the fact that a gay person got an award. What I am amazed at is that he seemed to get it mainly because of an impassioned speech. The speech was mainly about a person who got abuse because they are different to others. It does not seem like much of a reason to get an award to me.

Yet, as you pointed out this speech got 675,097 views on you tube and resulted in this award. It seemed like a very ordinary albeit passionate speech in my opinion. But yet it managed to get lots of attention.

I just feel that other groups could learn from this approach as the gay community seem to be very good at self promotion and advocacy issues and other minority groups are not as good at it at all.

Well maybe you should rephrase your original post because a lot of people don't seem to understand that you support gay people getting an award but are worried that other minorities aren't represented enough.

Homophobic abuse in the street is not nothing and not something to ignore and say oh well those people don't like me that's fine. Most people walk to the shops and no comment and no projectiles are thrown at them. Panti uses that as the refrain but also talks about more serious homophobia in the form of censorship in the media and physical violence and execution abroad. Her point is that no form of homophobia is acceptable even in it's tamest manifestations.

DeVore

Imagine if we had laws that said "Black people cant be allowed to teach children"... or what about "Women aren't allowed to donate blood" or "Disabled people aren't allowed to marry."

jezzer

I wonder what mick the bull Daly, publican of the year would have to say on the matter??

Hande hoche!

jezzer wrote: »

I wonder what mick the bull Daly, publican of the year would have to say on the matter??

or his son for that matter.

gormdubhgorm

DeVore wrote: »

Imagine if we had laws that said "Black people cant be allowed to teach children"... or what about "Women aren't allowed to donate blood" or "Disabled people aren't allowed to marry."

Up until very recently women were obliged to leave the civil service when they got married. Societal attitudes and norms change.

I can understand how the gay community want civil partnership to be called marriage because they will be on an equal footing to everyone else.

But it kind of amuses me because in this day and age marriage is devalued anyway. As there is no stigma to children outside wedlock like years ago and divorce is now permitted. Also for a lot of couples it makes more economic sense to remain an "unmarried mother" but live with a partner because they would lose benefits.

I still think the gay community is in a very strong position in comparison to the other minority. As the gay community has heavy involvement in arts, culture, education, media and of course politics.

The other groups I mentioned have issues are that are far more basic and involve integration into society.

The blood donation issue is being looked at by Varadkar. He said it would be decided on science. So this issue may very soon be resolved.

If the only issue for the gay community left is gay marriage. Public opinion already seems to be in favour of it. So it will not be long until that is achieved.

I think the other minority groups problems that I mentioned do not look like they will be resolved so successfully. For the reasons I have already stated in previous posts their voice is not as strong as that of the LGBT community.

I fear that other minority groups I mentioned in particular the travellers and the disabled might never achieve the level of advocacy and influence of public opinion that the LGBT community currently receive.

Hopefully ethic minority groups/immigrants should eventually achieve improved status in Ireland as the more educated second generations will provide the building blocks for the future.

Daith

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I fear that other minority groups I mentioned in particular the travellers and the disabled might never achieve the level of advocacy and influence of public opinion that the LGBT community currently receive.

You act as if there are no LGBT travellers or disabled people.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The other groups I mentioned have issues are that are far more basic and involve integration into society.

Which is why the LGBT seems to speak louder. The other groups are about society and integration. LGBT people want equality.

I'd also argue that the Trans community can be treated just as badly as any other group in Ireland.