Have gay men become part of the "Establishment?"

JupiterKid

I was talking to a gay male friend a few days ago and we both came to the conclusion that in the most socially enlightened countries in the West, being a gay male is no longer a hindrance to one's career or social climbing prospects.

We have an openly gay Taoiseach and very few comment on his sexuality (though they rightly do on his piss poor performance) a number of very senior ranking gay men in business and industry - sports is of course way way behind but progress is very slowly being made here too.

Gay women are also increasing in visibility at the upper levels of Western society although IMO they have sexism to challenge as well as lingering homophobia.

However it does seem that a significant cohort of gay men and women reject what they perceive to be society "normalising" them, through equality measures such as SSM and embrace their difference to so-called "normal" society.

But what is "normal" anyway?

Thoughts?

professore

In a lot of fields, particularly arty and media fields, being a gay man is a huge advantage. Less so a gay woman.

bodice ripper

"Gay culture" is entirely centred around gay men.

Annasopra

There are various different angles on this

1 Yes gay men are very much nowadays seen as equal to their heterosexual peers in certain areas; politics and business for example - however when you look at it tends to be certain types of gay men - Settled, cisgender, white, able bodied, middle class - its rare to find gay men who are travellers or trans or an ethnic minority or disabled or working class rise within cerain areas - So in a sense there almost an acceptance that certain types of gay men are ok. In fact a leader of the Marriage equality movement in Ireland once said publicly that we got marriage because of lots of middle class gay people coming out. The establishment will almost accept certain types of gay men but not others

2 Look as well at how lgbt activism can often work. They very often tend to recreate societal hierarchies of opression and patriarchy where they would quite often be lead by gay men and have a decresing influence with the others so it would be almost like an unwriten rule of GLBT with G issues being treated in a way as most important and a lessening importance placed on L then B then T. This also means that nowadays many gay men can completely forget LBT issues at all because their needs have been met and they often assume LBT peoples have too.

3. There has also been a remarkable seachange in the fortunes of gay men and women. In the past because of discrimination in the workplace and in society they often faced quite a lot of poverty. Nowadays studies are starting to showt that lesbians and gay men often earn more than their straight counterparts. In fact in the US this is a very recent phenomemen - its only the last 2/3 years showing gay men are paid more.

JupiterKid

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There are various different angles on this

1 Yes gay men are very much nowadays seen as equal to their heterosexual peers in certain areas; politics and business for example - however when you look at it tends to be certain types of gay men - Settled, cisgender, white, able bodied, middle class - its rare to find gay men who are travellers or trans or an ethnic minority or disabled or working class rise within cerain areas - So in a sense there almost an acceptance that certain types of gay men are ok. In fact a leader of the Marriage equality movement in Ireland once said publicly that we got marriage because of lots of middle class gay people coming out. The establishment will almost accept certain types of gay men but not others

2 Look as well at how lgbt activism can often work. They very often tend to recreate societal hierarchies of opression and patriarchy where they would quite often be lead by gay men and have a decresing influence with the others so it would be almost like an unwriten rule of GLBT with G issues being treated in a way as most important and a lessening importance placed on L then B then T. This also means that nowadays many gay men can completely forget LBT issues at all because their needs have been met and they often assume LBT peoples have too.

3. There has also been a remarkable seachange in the fortunes of gay men and women. In the past because of discrimination in the workplace and in society they often faced quite a lot of poverty. Nowadays studies are starting to showt that lesbians and gay men often earn more than their straight counterparts. In fact in the US this is a very recent phenomemen - its only the last 2/3 years showing gay men are paid more.

I'm not sure if the apparent rise of the so-called "pink euro" amongst professional gay men in particular is due to them being paid more - but perhaps it is because they are far less likely to have the huge expense of raising children that they have much more disposable income to spend on luxuries such as designer clothes, eating out in restaurants and foreign holidays?

JackTaylorFan

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not sure if the apparent rise of the so-called "pink euro" amongst professional gay men in particular is due to them being paid more - but perhaps it is because they are far less likely to have the huge expense of raising children that they have much more disposable income to spend on luxuries such as designer clothes, eating out in restaurants and foreign holidays?

Cost of living expenses to disposable income ratios =/= salary

https://hbr.org/2017/12/gay-men-used-to-earn-less-than-straight-men-now-they-earn-more

Annasopra

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not sure if the apparent rise of the so-called "pink euro" amongst professional gay men in particular is due to them being paid more - but perhaps it is because they are far less likely to have the huge expense of raising children that they have much more disposable income to spend on luxuries such as designer clothes, eating out in restaurants and foreign holidays?

Does not having children for men mean you earn more? Really?

JupiterKid

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Does not having children for men mean you earn more? Really?

Nope, that’s not what I mean at all. If a gay man is earning the same salary as his straight work colleague who has children he will have more disposable income.

I mean that currently most gay men (and many gay women) are significantly less likely to have children than their straight counterparts and this means that they would not have expenses required to raise children which can be a considerable proportion of their incomes, therefore they would have more income at their disposal to spend on other things such as leisure activities, housing costs, clothing, holidays etc.

Obviously this is changing as more gay and lesbian couples raise children, but currently I believe my previous point holds true.

wakka12

I think in some parts of ireland it has reached peak total acceptance. where I live anyway , a lot of people are out as gay, and nobody cares at all, like even in the slightest,its becoming not dissimilar to saying youre vegetarian or some other reasonably uncommon and slightly interesting characteristic that won't really have any negative social implications on any aspect of your life, similar for gay women tbh, from what I can see at least

Overall id say being openly gay has had no negative impacts on my life(earlier years like during secondary school were not good though) and one thing I feel is quite positive is that women will always feel more comfortable around you initially than if you were straight, which is nice I think.

As joey said nearly all are settled, cisgender, white, able bodied, middle class though,I know gay muslims for instance and even though they also live in the same very open minded area face a lot discrimination and prejudice within their more intimate and very conservative circles

brownej

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There are various different angles on this

1 Yes gay men are very much nowadays seen as equal to their heterosexual peers in certain areas; politics and business for example - however when you look at it tends to be certain types of gay men - Settled, cisgender, white, able bodied, middle class - its rare to find gay men who are travellers or trans or an ethnic minority or disabled or working class rise within cerain areas - So in a sense there almost an acceptance that certain types of gay men are ok. In fact a leader of the Marriage equality movement in Ireland once said publicly that we got marriage because of lots of middle class gay people coming out. The establishment will almost accept certain types of gay men but not others

If you remove gay from the highlighted bit of your point the outcome is the same.
It would seem like being gay on its own is not enough to limit you in Irish society today. However being part of the other groups mentioned is still not necessarily accepted whether you are gay or not.

jobbridge4life

No I don't think that gay men, even white 'passing' gay men are part of 'the Establishment'. Enormous progress has been made without a doubt, but discrimination still exists. Homophobia still exists. Having the occassional gay person make it to the top of certain career fields is great but it does not, in anyway, equate to complete acceptance.

Manion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Does not having children for men mean you earn more? Really?

In tech not having children allows for higher job mobility. The easiest way to increase salary is by moving company. Additionally it would be pretty reasonable to assume parents are motivated by different things. For example, holdiays and flexible working hours that fit around a child's need are typically more important than base salary.

All opinion based but certainly it's plausible. I'm sure their is some academic study on this.

GarIT

JupiterKid wrote: »

I was talking to a gay male friend a few days ago and we both came to the conclusion that in the most socially enlightened countries in the West, being a gay male is no longer a hindrance to one's career or social climbing prospects.

You are right, in fact it's the opposite in some places now. Many tech companies are hiring and promoting, members of the LGBT community, women and foreigners even when more qualified men are available in the name of equality.

If you're a straight white male it's very difficult to climb the corporate ladder now in some companies.

There are some places where there must still be anunconcious bias but in others being diverse is the main criteria to look at when giving promotions.

wakka12

GarIT wrote: »

You are right, in fact it's the opposite in some places now. Many tech companies are hiring and promoting, members of the LGBT community, women and foreigners even when more qualified men are available in the name of equality.

If you're a straight white male it's very difficult to climb the corporate ladder now in some companies.

There are some places where there must still be anunconcious bias but in others being diverse is the main criteria to look at when giving promotions.

Ah cmon now thats not true. I don't know where you work but most places Ive worked judge people on the merit of their work , the only difference today is that being gay female or foreign no longer has negative effects on how those people's work is perceived or judged, theres just equal footing

Manion

wakka12 wrote: »

Ah cmon now thats not true. I don't know where you work but most places Ive worked judge people on the merit of their work , the only difference today is that being gay female or foreign no longer has negative effects on how those people's work is perceived or judged, theres just equal footing

The company I work for applies weighted scoring to counter the systemic imbalance in the senior ranks. But this makes sense because diversity is seen to have a value and benifit. Companies are much more concerned with fit in tech these days and candidates should be reviewed in context of their role they will fullfill and not just a checkbox of competencies.

GarIT

wakka12 wrote: »

Ah cmon now thats not true. I don't know where you work but most places Ive worked judge people on the merit of their work , the only difference today is that being gay female or foreign no longer has negative effects on how those people's work is perceived or judged, theres just equal footing

I said in some companies not most or all. As the poster below some companies use "diversity" as a hiring and promotion metric, and by diversity they mean how far removed from a straight white male you are.

SAP put on a presentation on why you should work for them and their main selling point was "10% of our applicants are female but 40% of people we hire are female and were hoping to push that to 50%" To me that's blatant discrmiination, equality would be that if 10% of your applicants are female roughy 10% of the people you hire should be female. I don't have any direct examples with sexuality but I've heard from HR people that it's there, they have diversity quotas that they have to hit.

Manion

GarIT wrote: »

I said in some companies not most or all. As the poster below some companies use "diversity" as a hiring and promotion metric, and by diversity they mean how far removed from a straight white male you are.

SAP put on a presentation on why you should work for them and their main selling point was "10% of our applicants are female but 40% of people we hire are female and were hoping to push that to 50%" To me that's blatant discrmiination, equality would be that if 10% of your applicants are female roughy 10% of the people you hire should be female. I don't have any direct examples with sexuality but I've heard from HR people that it's there, they have diversity quotas that they have to hit.

You seem to assume diversity in the work place has no value.

vetinari

Being a straight white man is still the easiest path to climb the company ladder.
Daft to say it isn't.
Take a look at any major company's executives or board members.
The majority of them will have a certain race and gender in common.

Gay white men have definitely been able to have the gay part of their identity not count against them professionally in recent years.
At least at the levels I'm at. Maybe there's still a disadvantage higher up the company where people are older and most have kids.
Being gay and without kids might mean you have a lot less in common with other peers so will have to work a bit harder to build social connections.

GarIT

Manion wrote: »

You seem to assume diversity in the work place has no value.

I don't assume that. Diversity in the workplace is important, but I would argue that it should be rougly in line with diversity in the country rather than going far beyond it, especially when it is pushed to the point where non-diverse people are at a disadvantage on the baiss of their gender or sexuality alone.

On rare occasions I've seen HR policies where they have to meet their female quota regardless of the quality of applicants. People should be evaluated for jobs on merit and not overlooked for and non-work related reason.

Ludikrus

vetinari wrote: »

Being a straight white man is still the easiest path to climb the company ladder.
Daft to say it isn't.
Take a look at any major company's executives or board members.
The majority of them will have a certain race and gender in common.

Gay white men have definitely been able to have the gay part of their identity not count against them professionally in recent years.
At least at the levels I'm at. Maybe there's still a disadvantage higher up the company where people are older and most have kids.
Being gay and without kids might mean you have a lot less in common with other peers so will have to work a bit harder to build social connections.

Absolute b*llocks. I’m a lifetime working in multinationals and it’s a level playing field... today it doesn’t matter if you’re female, gay or straight. My boss is a woman and my Vice President is a gay man. It’s a meritocracy. Unless of course you are ‘the only gay in the village’.

Manion

GarIT wrote: »

I don't assume that. Diversity in the workplace is important, but I would argue that it should be rougly in line with diversity in the country rather than going far beyond it, especially when it is pushed to the point where non-diverse people are at a disadvantage on the baiss of their gender or sexuality alone.

On rare occasions I've seen HR policies where they have to meet their female quota regardless of the quality of applicants. People should be evaluated for jobs on merit and not overlooked for and non-work related reason.

If you accept that diversity has value then it followes that a less experienced but crucially fully qualified candidate maybe hired to further diversity. Quotas are bad in general but people confuse monitoring for quotas. Tbh this is a complex issue with winners and losers in any attempt to address it. I recall when I went to university that there was a quote of course places reserved for students of disadvantaged backgrounds.

An_Toirpin

Yes gays have become part of the establishment. It is wonderfully that they finally they have left the insane left.