“Normalization reduces the need for solidarity and subcultures, and that’s a cost, but one worth paying.”
Yup.
posted by Jorge on
All true.
Even I (as my goals are quite different) have a sense of “mission accomplished”, and I don’t like it. That article cites a loss of community, I would cite purpose; what is there left but the rat race? Those progressives don’t have that problem because they can project that need to be important on some other social cause.
posted by MR Bill on
As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
I agree with that assessment, and continue to work. But I think that there has been a real change toward “normalization” of gay and lesbian life over the last decade. “Boys Town” in Chicago, once a vibrant gay neighborhood is now a historic district with a bar or two, but that’s about it. The rest of it is indistinguishable from any other half-upscale lakefront neighborhood. Gays and lesbians are living everywhere now, just neighbors for the most part, and that is happening all over the country to one extent or another.
Change begets change.
posted by Jorge on
As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
I disagree with the premise that anti discrimination laws are even needed. So long as there is a will to get work done, what does it matter how it gets done?
posted by JohnInCA on
Disagree with the premise? Seeing as the premise is “X group faces unjust discrimination in Y domain, and we should try to fix that” (replace ‘X’ with your choice of blacks, women, Irish, Jews, vets, gays, etc and so-on, and replace ‘Y’ with your choice of housing, employment, education, government assistance, public accommodations, etc and so-on), which part are you “disagreeing” with? That such discrimination happens, or that we should do something about it?
If you disagree with my summary of the premise, I’m curious what you think is a better one.
posted by Jorge on
Seeing as the premise is “X group faces unjust discrimination in Y domain, and we should try to fix that”
That’s not what Mr Bill stated. You’re stating the problem. Mr. Bill stated the solution.
I disagree fundamentally that anti discrimination laws are the only solution possible. I favor social change rather than legal change. More broadly, there is room for a variety of solutions to any social or policy problem.
This is a pretty big deal to me. The idea that one solution, and only one solution, is open for discussion leads to the very sort of intolerant, unprincipled, and otherwise caricatured world view that has made LGBT and progressive activism alike evolve into something that has grown more and more disturbing. I am sure Mr. Miller can explain it better than I can. They used to try to adopt the highest principles of the United States, but more and more they seem to be arguing against them.
posted by JohnInCA on
I disagree fundamentally that anti discrimination laws are the only solution possible.
It’s not surprising you’d disagree with a strawman, most folks do.
Or to put it in other words, the idea that one solution, and only one solution, is open for discussion is a caricature that you have created.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
MR Bill: As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
Jorge: I disagree with the premise that anti discrimination laws are even needed. So long as there is a will to get work done, what does it matter how it gets done?
Have I been suddenly transported to Chicago in the 1950’s when companies and unions worked in tandem to effectively exclude blacks from the trades?
No matter, I guess. The work got done, and the darkies could find work as laborers, assuming any of them wanted to work.
Jesus, Jorge, rethink.
posted by Jorge on
Interesting. You use the word “job” and “work” in your post to refer to two completely different things.
Would you care to explain why that is?
Mary and Joseph, Tom, reread.
posted by Matthew on
“Have I been suddenly transported to Chicago in the 1950’s when companies and unions worked in tandem to effectively exclude blacks from the trades?”
Unions suck. Plain and simple. All the ones not run by Communists were run by the Mob.
11 Comments for “What Follows Success”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Normalization reduces the need for solidarity and subcultures, and that’s a cost, but one worth paying.”
Yup.
posted by Jorge on
All true.
Even I (as my goals are quite different) have a sense of “mission accomplished”, and I don’t like it. That article cites a loss of community, I would cite purpose; what is there left but the rat race? Those progressives don’t have that problem because they can project that need to be important on some other social cause.
posted by MR Bill on
As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
I agree with that assessment, and continue to work. But I think that there has been a real change toward “normalization” of gay and lesbian life over the last decade. “Boys Town” in Chicago, once a vibrant gay neighborhood is now a historic district with a bar or two, but that’s about it. The rest of it is indistinguishable from any other half-upscale lakefront neighborhood. Gays and lesbians are living everywhere now, just neighbors for the most part, and that is happening all over the country to one extent or another.
Change begets change.
posted by Jorge on
As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
I disagree with the premise that anti discrimination laws are even needed. So long as there is a will to get work done, what does it matter how it gets done?
posted by JohnInCA on
Disagree with the premise? Seeing as the premise is “X group faces unjust discrimination in Y domain, and we should try to fix that” (replace ‘X’ with your choice of blacks, women, Irish, Jews, vets, gays, etc and so-on, and replace ‘Y’ with your choice of housing, employment, education, government assistance, public accommodations, etc and so-on), which part are you “disagreeing” with? That such discrimination happens, or that we should do something about it?
If you disagree with my summary of the premise, I’m curious what you think is a better one.
posted by Jorge on
Seeing as the premise is “X group faces unjust discrimination in Y domain, and we should try to fix that”
That’s not what Mr Bill stated. You’re stating the problem. Mr. Bill stated the solution.
I disagree fundamentally that anti discrimination laws are the only solution possible. I favor social change rather than legal change. More broadly, there is room for a variety of solutions to any social or policy problem.
This is a pretty big deal to me. The idea that one solution, and only one solution, is open for discussion leads to the very sort of intolerant, unprincipled, and otherwise caricatured world view that has made LGBT and progressive activism alike evolve into something that has grown more and more disturbing. I am sure Mr. Miller can explain it better than I can. They used to try to adopt the highest principles of the United States, but more and more they seem to be arguing against them.
posted by JohnInCA on
It’s not surprising you’d disagree with a strawman, most folks do.
Or to put it in other words, the idea that one solution, and only one solution, is open for discussion is a caricature that you have created.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
MR Bill: As long as we have a need for anti discrimination laws, in employment, housing, medical care, the job isn’t done.
Jorge: I disagree with the premise that anti discrimination laws are even needed. So long as there is a will to get work done, what does it matter how it gets done?
Have I been suddenly transported to Chicago in the 1950’s when companies and unions worked in tandem to effectively exclude blacks from the trades?
No matter, I guess. The work got done, and the darkies could find work as laborers, assuming any of them wanted to work.
Jesus, Jorge, rethink.
posted by Jorge on
Interesting. You use the word “job” and “work” in your post to refer to two completely different things.
Would you care to explain why that is?
Mary and Joseph, Tom, reread.
posted by Matthew on
“Have I been suddenly transported to Chicago in the 1950’s when companies and unions worked in tandem to effectively exclude blacks from the trades?”
Unions suck. Plain and simple. All the ones not run by Communists were run by the Mob.