why it's not enough to support "human rights"

[sophiaserpentia]

A number of people on my friend's list have written recently that, rather than state that they support "gay rights," want to state that they support "human rights."

I understand the desire to transcend the frustrating divisions in our society, the potential pitfalls of identity politics (oh, yes, trust me on that). But wishes don't make it so, and here's why it is not enough to say you support "human rights."

In a country where men can vote and women cannot, no matter how much you talk about "human rights," you are not going to communicate to anyone why it is wrong to deny women's suffrage. That is because the majority of the population -- or at least a majority of the policymakers -- in that country think that the laws reflect a just understanding of human rights.

You have to specifically address the rights inequity because otherwise it does not enter anyone's consciousness. Women have to speak about how it affects their lives that they cannot vote -- in large part so that women can become aware of how their rights have been restricted. Raising consciousness is the biggest part of the struggle, and consciousness is not raised by abstract talk about human rights. The policymakers (if they cannot be replaced with new ones who have a better sense of justice) have to be made aware of the injustice their policies create, and again, this only happens if women talk specifically about their experiences and the restrictions on their lives.

People who oppose the right of women to vote will argue that women's suffrage is against the natural order. It was seriously believed 100 years ago that women could adversely affect their ability to reproduce if they use their brain too much. They will argue that it is against "common sense" and against tradition and is not necessary since women have men to protect them. They will argue, furthermore, that women who agitate for the right to vote are being divisive and creating discord.

In the modern United States, there are few people still alive who can remember a time when women could not vote. We take vote equality for granted and rail against the "obvious" injustice of other countries where women do not have the right to vote. We understand women's suffrage as a human right. So from this perspective of hindsight it could seem unnecessary (if one doesn't examine the historical perspective) to argue for women's right to vote by mentioning specifically "women's rights."

In our generation, the defining civil rights struggle is for the right of same-sex couples to have the same rights and privileges -- and duties -- as heterosexual couples. The fight for gays and lesbians to have legal protections as individuals from job or housing discrimination has largely been won. But now we understand that relationships have to be recognized as well for any true measure of equality to exist.

The only way to raise awareness of the disparity facing same-sex couples is to talk about their specific experiences, the 1001 myriad actual ways in which they cannot count on the same privileges as a married heterosexual couple. This means talking about the unfairness in the tax code; the unfairness facing a lesbian who does not receive benefits a husband would when her wife dies; the difficulty of adopting children when you are unmarried; and so on.

Awareness of unfairness is not going to arise in people through abstract declarations about support for the right of everyone to marry who they want. The specifics have to be described and talked about. The pain has to be voiced, so that others with similar pain which they have not previously articulated can say, "Oh, YES, i know this pain too, but i thought i was alone or weird!" People who already have this awareness consider the statement "everyone, gay or straight, should have the right to marry" to be obvious. People who do not already have this awareness consider this statement to be just as wrong as any demand for "gay marriage rights."

Another reason i reject the idea of "human rights, not gay rights" is that reactionaries have done a good job of convincing people there is a 'culture war' going on. Here is what this so-called 'culture war' looks like: "There is a free marketplace of ideas, in which the proponents and opponents of an idea stand on an equal footing. Therefore, if there is any nastyness, then the proponents and opponents are both equally to blame, throwing ideas around like bullets instead of dialoging rationally."

The idea of 'culture war' is a LIE, an insidious fiction designed to hide the real nature of the struggle for civil rights. People who lack access to equal rights, who are historically scorned and discriminated against, are not in any sense on an equal footing as the people who oppose their quest for equality.

People who have been systematically wronged have a right to be angry and to express that anger.

People who have been systematically wronged have a right to express their pain and anguish over the ways in which they have been traumatized, too.

Those who oppose equality complain that expressions of anger or anguish are "unfair" because they cannot "argue against" them. And what allows them to say this is the idea that there is a 'culture war' which should stop and be replaced by 'rational dialogue,' an artificially stultified form of discourse designed to allow opponents of equality to cite "logically and rationally" why they should continue to have special rights not shared by the disadvantaged, essentially allowing them to ignore everything and anything the disadvantaged say.

Comments

[x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com]

Yeah I couldn't believe the responses I got on my LJ. Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming "we're all one we're all one" WON'T make the problems we have in our society go away. Yes, ideally, we're all human and should strive for human rights. But we can't do that without focusing on the people whose rights we keep repeatedly taking away.

But for serious, I'm beyond appalled at some of the reactions I got. And I'm glad that I wasn't the only one!

[x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com]

Yup you summed up my reaction exactly.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

upstart_crow does a good job articulating why some are uncomfortable with the meme.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

That last link was supposed to point here.

[frahulettaes.livejournal.com]

what bluerose said. Additionally, I find it odd that simply agreeing on something has become so divisive. And that people seemed to go so far out of their way to find offense at the wording and simply ignore the spirit of the post. The whole thing has made me sad.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I've gotten a lot of insights about the way memes propagate from watching this unfold, and yes, you're right that its very curious that it has caused people who essentially agree to argue, in some cases quite vehemently. It's enough to make me wonder if this isn't an inherent property of certain forms of meme propagation.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I do believe you are onto something there.

I mean, just the way this meme was worded - pass along a no-thought statement that waters down an issue that many people including you personally may and do hold dear, or else be labelled a homophobe.

The spirit of support was almost enough to make me go along with the meme except for the "If you don't believe in gay rights, then just ignore this. Thanks" part. Because you know what, it is NOT okay for this to be ignored. Not at all. And saying would invite that stuff you wrote about here - about making something sound like a purely conceptual debate, something for "rational discussion" instead of looking at the very very real pain and suffering that not supporting full rights for glbt's brings about. And I'd rather be labelled a homophobe than contribute to bringing the issue down to such a trivial level. And I'd rather not object to the wording, either, because that carries the danger of causing arguement among people who essentially agree, to divide where there needs to be unified action and because unifed action is a much much different thing than acting with a unified voice.

So what are the choices. Risk being outcast for not following along. Silence your individual voice when you feel speaking as part of a group would hurt the group. Speak as an individual and be outcast and hurt the group effort.

I think memes like this in part try to remove the individual meaning. A unified voice is not a group voice. A group voice will have all sorts of varied tones and notes while singing the same tune. A unified voice loses complexity and power.

Which isn't to say that I support the silly assed notion of "human rights, not gay rights." Because the powers that be have created "gay" as a box, a unified group and imposed types of oppression on that group that have not been imposed on other humans. And what we need is a group effort of raising individual voices to show gay is just an arbitrary distinction that was drawn for the purpose of exploiting some at the expense of others. Stand together, fight the idea that those who stand together or who are oppressed together are "one" thing.

[sheta-kaey.livejournal.com]

You didn't seem appalled by what I posted.

I don't see how stating that everyone, regardless, show have equal rights somehow takes away from the fact that everyone specifically includes the ones who currently don't.

I'm so sick of all this shit. God forbid anyone have something heartfelt to say. It's all got to be about who is making the loudest Statement(TM).

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I don't see how stating that everyone, regardless, show have equal rights somehow takes away from the fact that everyone specifically includes the ones who currently don't.

It doesn't take away. It just doesn't go far enough, as i explained in my OP. Struggles over rights are not won by abstract statements, they are made by talking about real pain and raising awareness of that pain in people. That invovles talking about specifics.

For the record, i wasn't appalled by anyone's statement (i know you weren't addressing the first line of your comment to me, but i felt compelled to say this anyway), including yours. I simply disagree.

I was a bit disheartened to see how much this meme brought people -- most of whom actually agree with equal rights for gay people -- almost to the point of cyber-fisticuffs. Just because of the way the meme was worded.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

There is plenty of anger on both sides. The right wing are angry and perceive that they are being wronged. Sure, from the other side we can see that they aren't, but who is to act as the arbiter of acceptable anger?

I think expressions of anger are great, they are cathartic, and they can rally the base. But if you want to change everything, you need more than anger: you need a rational argument.

I think the other side has a vested interest in keeping the debate based on emotions. They intentional bait queer groups to get them react emotionally rather than rationally. Why? Because, there are plenty of rational arguments for equal rights and not as many against them. On rational grounds, we have the upper hand. On emotional grounds, tradition does.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that people on the right have no right to be angry. They have a lot of anger they don't understand (because they lack class consciousness they don't understand who it is who truly wrongs them), and the people they look up to tell them to direct it at gay people. Unjust regimes have relied on scapegoating of minorities for millenia.


But if you want to change everything, you need more than anger: you need a rational argument.

Certainly. Sometimes i worry though that allowing ourselves to be caught up in the "rationalize why you should have equal rights" game is to buy into the underlying assumption that we don't inherently deserve those rights, but we only get them if we can earn them by out-arguing our opponents -- which is very difficult to do when your opponents insist on setting all the rules for what qualifies as "debate."

If we deserve the rights everyone else has, isn't that enough reason in itself? I don't really understand what there is to rationalize further.


I think the other side has a vested interest in keeping the debate based on emotions.

Yes, and they also have a vested interest in keeping our emotions out of the discussion.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Certainly. Sometimes i worry though that allowing ourselves to be caught up in the "rationalize why you should have equal rights" game is to buy into the underlying assumption that we don't inherently deserve those rights, but we only get them if we can earn them by out-arguing our opponents -- which is very difficult to do when your opponents insist on setting all the rules for what qualifies as "debate."

If we deserve the rights everyone else has, isn't that enough reason in itself? I don't really understand what there is to rationalize further.

I agree with you in principle. However, many people are emotionally invested in maintaining their belief system. A belief system they were indoctrinate in at a very young age. If we want to change the way things are without convincing people that those early concepts they were taught about equality were wrong. Unfortunately that is a heavy and perhaps unfair burden on our side. But we cannot change that and we simply must continue to work through it.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Excellent point. We should do so while being careful that we are not allowing ourselves to be hemmed in to using only their terms of debate.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Who is the arbiter of rational? What is rational in one culture, in one belief system is not rational in another.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

This is why different nations have different sets of laws. I don't see that as a bad thing.

However, laws have to be based on something and I'd rather that be reason. Emotional reactions lead to things such as the PATRIOT Act and DOMA. While perfect reasoning is impossible – especially on complex issues – I prefer attempts at rational laws.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I think maybe I have a different understanding of what counts as emotional and rational. I don't even know if I beleive in separate thing as "rational." It seems more like a comparitive that just pretends to thingness.

To me it sounds like what you are against is the debate/creation of laws centering around the emotion that is the anger/fear entertwinement. And I can definitely agree that is harmful and polarizing.

But it seems that much good has come out the evoking of the emotion compassion. And while that is a calmer thing, it is not less of an emotional thing.

I guess this is sort of the idea behind passive resistance. Do nothing that will provoke the blinding anger/fear response and all then those who harm will have nothing to shield them from those who actively state and show the effects of the harm.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

I see your point. Emotions like compassion are good thing to have in laws. Even anger and fear have their place.

Perhaps, something in between would be better, laws that let reason temper emotion but ignore neither.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

You know what?

I understand everything you've said here. I even agree with most of it.

But when some damn meme shows up on my flist, authored by someone whom I dislike in the first place, snottily demanding that I post the meme if I support a certain set of rights and overtly implying that if I don't post it, then I don't support those rights, well - anyone who has a problem with me not posting it can kiss right the fuck off.

Sorry. Not buying the guilt trip. Thanks anyway.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Hey, i thought the meme was creepy too. So i didn't post it. I'm all about freedom from manipulative memes.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Well, that meme was what prompted this spate of "human/civil rights" responses. I know I'm not the only one who reacted that way.

It still pisses me off that anyone thinks they have the right to demand identification with *any* movement, anywhere. I deflisted someone because she demanded that I call myself a feminist, and you know what? Not going to put a label on myself just because someone else demands it.

*simmer*

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, that meme was what prompted this spate of "human/civil rights" responses. I know I'm not the only one who reacted that way.

It wasn't just this wave of reactions to the meme i'm responding to, though it was what prompted me to write. (To be honest i wasn't even going to mention the meme, because that's another way of propagating a meme and i didn't deem this one propagation-worthy.) But i've seen friends say these things for years. It seemed like an appropriate time to speak up.


Not going to put a label on myself just because someone else demands it.

I agree. I'm a bit disenchanted with identity politics.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I posted the chain meme as it was presented. I recognized its flaws. I do not know the originator. The person seemed young and/or blinded with anger. I can relate to people who get angry and frustrated. I felt it's primativeness held power. Gay rights is not a high school debate about a meaningless topic. People's lives are in the balance. Anger and frustration are real. Pretending all should be nice-nice is not real.

One person on my f-list expressed anger when she read my post. She did not like chain letters. However, I later noticed that she posted a chain letter about Bob Wilson needing money. So I guess some chain letters are OK with her, but not chain letters about gay rights.

Now, as I said, the chain letter was poorly worded and tried to tell people what it "meant" if they did not re-post it, which is utter bullshit. Maybe had the chain letter been worded more carefully, she would not have gotten upset.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

However, I later noticed that she posted a chain letter about Bob Wilson needing money. So I guess some chain letters are OK with her, but not chain letters about gay rights.

The RAW posting was for information purposes, the other merely badly-worded rhetoric that offered no data.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

The idea of 'culture war' is a LIE, an insidious fiction designed to hide the real nature of the struggle for civil rights.

I'm not sure I agree 100%. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky's observations about class warfare, there is indeed a culture war going on. But so far its only being fought by one side.

The struggle for equal rights for gays, women, blacks, etc., has always been, on one front, a "culture war," as well as an economic/class one. The perceived - or more accurately, contrived threat is couched as being a threat to the white, heterosexual, male-dominant culture. The need to keep "our" kids safe from The Bestial Negro, still informs the modern culture wars, such as Tipper Gore's assault on Prince's song lyrics... "do you really want your daughter listening to that?" as she asked her white suburban liberal audience, rhetorically. Ditto Hillary Clinton's war on video games, etc. The "reefer madness" laws of the 1930s that evolved into our modern "war on drugs" began as a way to harrass and assault Black and
Hispanic communities where marijuana was a more common and accepted part of the culture.

I grasp your point on "human" vs. "gay" rights, but as an American, I feel the struggle has to be couched in terms of equal rights under the constitution. The mainstream conservative-leaning voter really does perceive "gay rights" as a demand for "special rights," thanks to 20 years of rhetoric by politicians and their press lackeys. I've actually won a few people over here and there by patiently explaining the concept of "equal rights under law" and pointing out that Blacks and Jews were prohibited from the military, intermarriage, and job opportunities recently enough that I was alive then. Once they concede that other minorities didn't in fact get "special rights" but rather "equal rights" from their struggles, some start to grasp the concept of equal rights for gay people through that lens, instead of through the lens of Limbaugh.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree 100%. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky's observations about class warfare, there is indeed a culture war going on. But so far its only being fought by one side.

The kyriarchal class system which i have repeatedly characterized as "cannibalistic" is definitely a war being waged on disadvantaged classes by those in the upper class. This may be the original meaning of the term "kulturkampf." In THAT sense, i agree.

What i take exception to is the usage of the term "culture war" in the present-day United States. The term may have had a different meaning originally, in which case it has been misappropriated to have a meaning more like what i described above. My objection to the term is that it is most often used as a way to hide the fact that there is a real war going on, with real violence and real trauma and real anguish.

I think we are essentially in agreement.


The mainstream conservative-leaning voter really does perceive "gay rights" as a demand for "special rights," thanks to 20 years of rhetoric by politicians and their press lackeys.

When ironically what they are seeking preserve are "special rights" held only by heterosexuals.


I feel the struggle has to be couched in terms of equal rights under the constitution.

I can see your point and agree that some aspects of the struggle are probably better advanced in that way. My primary focus is on consciousness raising where you have to talk about specific experiences and unfairnesses so that others can realize that they've been affected too.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

When ironically what they are seeking preserve are "special rights" held only by heterosexuals.

Bingo. The definition of "privilege" is "private law."

I can see your point and agree that some aspects of the struggle are probably better advanced in that way. My primary focus is on consciousness raising where you have to talk about specific experiences and unfairnesses so that others can realize that they've been affected too.

Of course. We're just talking about two different (though occasionally overlapping) audiences.

I guess one unfortunate example of overlap is where you have some socially-conservative African Americans who are opposed to equal rights for gays. Many of them feel that the gay rights struggle somehow denigrates the struggle Black americans had to make to get equal rights in this country. Ditto some Jews who think that even talking about the Gay, Gypsy, and other populations killed by the Nazis somehow makes the Jewish holocaust less tragic or important. A lot of consciouness-raising to be done there, indeed.

I'll note that the Black struggle in America was always labeled, accurately, IMO, as "equal rights" and not "black rights" or (given the MLK era) "negro rights." There was, to be sure, "black Power" which was not the same thing. "Black Power" was a consciousness-raising identity-based movement that made it possible to get the oppressed minority
organized and motivated to wage the political struggle "equal rights."

Other victims of the Nazis.

[beowulf1723.livejournal.com]

It was a Jewish friend in college who admonished me not to use the verb "to gyp," as this came form "Gypsy," and the Gypsies suffered horribly under the Nazis.

[shava23.livejournal.com]

The problem tends to be the perception that "rights" is a zero sum game. If homosexuals get rights, then maybe people will pay less attention to labor, or women, or blacks, or hispanics, or PWA or PWD or PWW (people with whatever).

I take a cue from MLK, who realized late in his tragically shortened life that *rights* were what he was about, not civil rights for blacks. Hence you get the Poor People's March and his comments on the Vietnam War.

Of course, I get special rights since I'm Jewish and Rrom and bi, so no one gets to scream at me about who got more killed in the holocaust. Well, maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses...:-P

Shava

[ineffabelle]

hear hear.
I actually have a post on Gay Marriage that ties into this a bit, but I wasn't able to make it really correct yesterday. If I can wrangle it into shape, I'll post it today.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your kind words. :-D

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The Culture War is very real, and we are fighting it every day. We didn't start it, and we certainly didn't want it, but the religious reich gave us no choice in the matter. To them, it is a war in every sense of the word, and if we forget that, or dismiss it, we are apt to regret it.

We could have had a nice chat over tea about the forces that lead cultures to evolve over time, but no. They don't believe in evolution of any sort, so if the culture is changing in ways they can not understand, clearly someone id forcing the change upon them. Unfortunately, now that they have cast it as a war, we can only resist and fight back, lest they drag our culture into the caves of their fears.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I don't think we disagree. There is definitely a real war going on, but when i see the term "culture war" being used, it is usually used hand in hand with the so-called "free marketplace of ideas" to imply that, for example, proponents and opponents of gay rights are equally to blame for any animosity in the public discourse. THIS is what i am referring to as the self-serving fabrication of the conservatives, probably to assuage their subconscious guilt at defending an odious and oppressive social order.

[misinsatiable.livejournal.com]

Here here for righteous anger. I try and keep my ears wide open.

[demoivre.livejournal.com]

I like what you have to say. Mind if I Friend you? v :)

[demoivre.livejournal.com]

And, no, I have no idea what that little 'v' is doing in front of the 'smiley face'. But here's another.v Woo hoo!v

[la-veuve-chibi.livejournal.com]

Well freaking said. Probably the most important thing I learned studying sociology was that you cannot simply lump everyone together and ignore differences. It's why affirmative action, multiculturalism and the specification of ____ rights is necessary--because some are starting with a disadvantage, and you can't say let's be fair and have everyone start the race at the same time when some runners' starting lines are miles behind others'.

[crossfire.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. I've been so busy lately I haven't had a chance to really digest all of the input I've gotten on this issue, but I'm going to.

Here in Colorado we've got Referendum I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Referendum_I_(2006)) on the ballot. Here's to hoping.