Gregory's Server@iju This is not how being flamboyantly gay works, firstly, and we weren't all purity testing each other before we engaged in activism. Purity tests are things usually used AGAINST activists for being humans living in the world and not saints (see the "gottchas" you listed, that wasn't environmentalists screaming about Thunberg being a person living in society with human needs). Back in the 80s we knew we were messy motherfuckers and we did our imperfect shit very imperfectly (in fact, that's the DIY mantra...just do shit and learn and adapt as you go). Also, purity is a religious idea and it's actually generally about projecting all of the shit one considers "bad" in oneself onto someone else so the person in question can feel like they're better than other people. It's bullshit, it's about the individual needing to disown part of themselves for some reason.
|
10 comments
  Would an example of purity test to be like animal rights activist being barred from taking part "in the scene" for saying that they consider hunted meat to be ethical? Because I've been speaking in this context. This happened to a friend of mine. Edit: After reviewing the conversation: Or being pushed to eat meat because it's "not that bad" and "you don't want to make a scene"? In this case you either fold or make yourself a caricature. I'm not a historian of homosexual rights, and I feel a bit uncomfortable in speaking of these things in detail, but I understand that big part of gay rights was having it been accepted that being gay is normal. And that in turn required mentioning you've being gay even when you could avoid doing so, thus breaking the idea of what's normal. This is what I meant when I said flamboyant. It might have been the wrong word, of which I apologize. You note that my argument wasn't about gays, but about activism and its costs. Also that I repeatedly apologized of initially speaking of gays for various reasons, NOR did I want to argue about things where your lived experience and my limited book knowledge were from different continents and cultures. I've tried to steer toward the basic hypothesis, but also wanted to create space for comparing our cultural differences as I wanted to hear your thoughts. Afaik, ACT UP wasn't a thing hereabouts. AIDS was more or less seen as a problem for the public health care system, and that's how it was adressed. (This based on articles I've read -- I'm a bit too young to have lived this). But as I said, using gays in this context might have been a mistake. I've done activism. Never been in the "vanguard", though. I do know people who I'd say are. But I don't keep my ideals close to chest in hope of normalisation. But speaking of gays and gay rights of 1980s, these are the photos that are popular here to memorise the time. I'd say it has some carnevalisation in there, wouldn't you? At least it's hard to do this in closet. And that's hard in a society like mine which was very homogenous. They were intentionally breaking the law (by being seen and themselves), and thus making them open for jail. And today Pride is all about carnevalisation, of course. |
@fifilamoura @kissane
Perhaps I used the wrong word, or wrong example. This isn't my first language, nor am I familiar with United States of today or or yesteryear (which I'm assuming you're contextualing my message to).
What I tried to say is that pushing new ideas as an activist involves being a caricature for various reasons: to draw attention, to set an example, to not be pushed aside when others ask you to take it down a notch for their convenience etc.