AMERICAblog: 63 women out of 176 invitees (that's 36%)
Semantics
· 5 months ago
As a gay woman, I am especially interested in this report. What's with the kill-the-messenger stuff?
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
Well, it's either some trolls hired by friends of O, or we have a serious sexism problem in our community if people honestly believe that civil rights events should invite 2 men for everyone woman.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Whoa, John. It looks like you his a nerve with this one. The Obamabots and homophobes are howling and whining.
I don't know about the ratio of gay men to gay women, but my experience has always been -- in 27 years of being involved in gay issues -- that lesbians who are active politically fay outnumber gay men who are active politically. So, you would even have expected the balance to tilt the other way.
Good catch.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 5 months ago
i was always dumbfounded (and grateful) at how many women were involved in HIV/AIDS issues.
latda
· 5 months ago
It is the Obama WH that created that Invite list. Perhaps the gay male community is not aware that Obama said in a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on the primary campaign trail that the "first bill" he would sign would be FOCA. Obama has broken many campaign promises regarding civil rights. The more campaign promises that are confronted the greater chance we all have to hold the DNC accountable for the platform they committed to, historically commit to, and historically fail to follow through with.
RH11
· 5 months ago
My first thought on seeing the photo up on Sullivan was, how odd, all gay people are white, male and balding.
caphillprof
· 5 months ago
I think it says less about John and more about the Obama administration (maladministration?) that it's lack of transparency and openness forces us to read the tea leaves, in this case looking at who showed up for a clue as to what's going on (or, in the case of the Obama administration, what's NOT going on).
Meanwhile we have police forces across the country attacking gays: in a bar in Ft. Worth and at a political fundraiser in Encinatas and not protecting a gay man harassed by a gang of Somali immigrant children in Minneapolis. This is all part of a piece crying out for leadership, which we don't have in the White House, nor at the HRC.
jpjones
· 5 months ago
EXACTLY!! If Obama were busy keeping his campaign promises instead of scrambling to do damage control, none of this would be an issue to begin with.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 5 months ago
commenters seem to be unhappy with this post. but i too would like to know who is advising obama. i hope it leaks out.
and frankly, i don't see why it shouldn't be open season on the whole administration until we hear an apology or explanation for the DOMA brief. then a meaningful conversation about DADT. I'm too much of a coward to be leading the attacks, but i don't mind somebody else doing it.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
The commenters are new. Put two and two together.
Indigo
· 5 months ago
This uppity old queer thinks that's a point worth looking at.
PAULinDC
· 5 months ago
While I'd certainly categorize the gender mix issue as tertiary at best, I've read the Blade and other accounts and I'm still severely disappointed by the sycophantic behavior of the LGBT representation [I refuse to say 'leadership', because their behavior doesn't qualify as leadership].
The President's behavior is still clearly inconsistent when it comes to establishing equal rights for LGBT Americans. I think the cocktail commemoration - or however they were billing it - was designed to miss the evening news cycle ... on a Monday night, no less.
I don't care if John seems nitpicky ... his comments are symptomatic of the fact that the gay soiree didn't get us a thing. The President didn't commit to taking any substantive action personally.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
Nice photo-op for the administration but, not full of any substance, save, smoke and mirrors, for gays and lesbians. Of course, the pseudo-leaders were mesmerized but anything Obama says to them mesmerizes them.
(a good time was had by all . . .) (sigh)
For those who are complaining about John's choice of subject and statistics:
"(Perhaps all the lesbians got too uppity about their civil rights and got blacklisted too.)" ======================================================= Wouldn't you be a bit upset with this administration if you spent countless hours and days helping this man get elected and raising $50,000 dollars for his campaign only to be "blacklisted" from any Obama function only because John, Joe and Chris had the cojones to speak out against this administration because of it drifting so far away from its promises? They essentially gave him the finger no matter what AmericaBlog or John et al did personally. I think he has every right to point out how much of a fraud Obama is and his administration until they actually do something to make us equal with other citizens.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 5 months ago
Well it could also be that Obama is terrified of the Southern Strategy and you see Leviticus only mentions man lying with man and ya know lesbian porn is so fuckin' hot for the average Bud drinkin Bubba down here in Dumbfuckistan anyway. Anyway we fags are just yucky icky and the lesbians are off their radar anyway.
acedapper
· 5 months ago
Wasn't the topic of the night something about military service? Apply those gender percentages to the military and see if you get a fit. You hand-picked a factoid to bitch about. That's a queer behavior that espesially does not suit you!. A. Swayne, Baltmd
J.
· 5 months ago
This used to be my favorite blog, the first place I'd go each and every morning. For the past month, it's been unreadable. Please, grow the fuck up.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Hold on -- the WAAAAAAHMBULANCE is on it's way
J.
· 5 months ago
The WAAAAAHMBULANCE is coming for me? Because I criticized John and his followers for crying too much?
Pot, kettle.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
The question is, why bother to criticize?
There are very few places on the net to hear this grievance. You have virtually the entire gamut of blog sites to pursue your interests.
To criticize John for covering an undercovered story that has great interest for many of his readers (who are part of the glbt community) is your prerogative.
It is also your prerogative to move on.
This is a nice way of saying, it matters to me, and if you don't like it, we could care less about your concerns, as well.
J.
· 5 months ago
My criticism doesn't come from a place of anger at John. My heart breaks for him. I know he is frustrated, and upset, and growing more impatient with each passing day. I'm merely imploring him to calm down. I love this blog. I love his writing. I love his insight. But bitching and crying and moaning over the disparity of men/women at an event is asinine.
mooresart
· 5 months ago
You're all missing the larger issue which is gender bias across the board. I mean, how many women senators and representatives and judges are there? An embarrassingly small percentage. THAT is what is asinine.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
I take it you have full civil rights.
The Internet is a big place...take advantage of it.
And please close the door on your way out.
J.
· 5 months ago
As a gay American, I don't. But nice try. Some of us have merely progressed to the point where we practice this thing called "patience". Apparently, it's a virtue. It's been 6 fucking months. Good lord.
RH11
· 5 months ago
For those of us who were patient all through the Clinton era this has become difficult. People have died waiting patiently for their civil rights. I am not without compassion, I am sure I sounded just like you in the past. I don't dislike Obama, I spent a lot of money trying to get him elected, I convinced other people to vote for him, but I don't think he is going to pay the slightest bit of attention to us unless we are extremely impatient. There will never be a politically opportune time to deal with hot button issues unless you make not dealing with them hotter.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 5 months ago
patience works both ways. in other words, be patient with those of us who are not happy with the homophobia in the west wing and not satisfied with gibbs's non-answers to our questions. if you weren't trying to shut somebody up, you'd just move to another thread, no?
PS: I realize that's a little off the point of this thread. so my point is that when you read a righteous rant that seems to go too far in your opinion, why not just say it's gone too far instead of getting indignant and insulting? where is the indignation coming from?
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
Enjoy your seat in the back of the bus.
For a gay American to tell John to "grow the fuck up" reveals far more about you than it does about him.
What some people call 'patience' others call 'appeasement.'
Terry Slusher
· 5 months ago
Well, reading what you have been writing here, it would seem that anyone that doesn't agree that hammering the Obama Administration on this issue each and every day over what many apparently consider getting into nit-picky issues such as the subject matter of this particular posting means we should just shut up and go to another blog to read about other issues. OK, but I would suggest that you consider how you will achieve whatever your goal is without the help of the straight community. Because if you think making it a gay only effort will work for the future, you will continue to lose. Kinda like relying upon the gay leadership in California to lead the opposition to Prop 8. So why don't you ask John if that is what he wants before you start trying to run off those folks who are simply stating an opinion regarding the necessity of this particular line of critcism on the Obama administration. We all invested a lot of time and money on this last election and I am a damn site more disappointed in the Dems in Congress though I do agree the DADT brief was abhorrant (and deservedly should be criticized heavily).
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
Nobody said we want a glbt-only alliance.
But, if you think I, or any self-respecting gay person is going to respond respectfully to somebody who writes "grow the fuck up" you need a little bit of sensitivity training.
If you have read what I have written, you will note that I have responded to those who go out of their way to come to a glbt-specific post, and then complain that there was such a post in the first place.
The people who complain have no idea about the lack of coverage glbt issues get on the vast majority of Progressive blogs. And then we get personally attacked in the forums by those who act as if we have gall for being at odds with the man we helped elect.
I am not just enraged at Obama, but at the entire Democratic Party. Pretty soon the capitulation will also be in on health care...it all blends together, after awhile. What is becoming more apparent, is that there is not all that much of a difference between corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats.
Additionally, I came out a little over 15 years ago, while in my 30s, but I know my history. Prior to Stonewall, Democrats and Republicans equally treated gay people abhorrently. Being gay was a crime in most places and often treated with shock therapy and lobotomies.
While attitudes today are better, there is much homophobia in Democratic enclaves, like the latino and African-American communities. So much so, that I really feel for my Hispanic and African-American gay brothers and sisters.
In fact, I heard someone today discuss a survey (I believe on the Stephanie Miller show, talking to Hal Sparks) that showed that even the majority of Democratic respondents in a poll did not think that the love between gays was the equivalent of heterosexual love. And therein lies much of the problem.
My point is that we cannot rely on others to do the right thing. Those who have a true Progressive agenda will be supportive, but if folks are not, we have no control over that.
Being pacifistic, and shutting up and rolling over is not the answer. Especially to try and gain the support of people who have no concept, or regard, for our struggle to begin with.
I am not an extremist. I work in the media and have as many straight friends as gay. But I am getting real tired of the status quo in this country, which is so behind every other Western nation.
I appreciate being able to express some of that anger, which has been missing from the glbt community for far too long.
Terry Slusher
· 5 months ago
My feelings exactly. Well said.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
There are stories on this blog that are not glbt-themed. Why spend your precious minutes on this story, unless you have an agenda?
For something so 'unreadable,' you have chosen to focus in on it.
Terry Slusher
· 5 months ago
Sure there are. But fewer and fewer. The last month has been one big bash on the Obama Administration about breaking promises to the gay community. If John wants this to be a gay only site, just let the rest of us know and we will go elsewhere to read about the many other issues that were on this website. I never really considered this to be a website that focused primarily on gay issues, but rather, considered it a website that focused on progressive issues and shining the light on the regressive behavior of the Republican party where the folks who ran it just happened to be gay. But it is getting obsessive about bashing Obama on gay issues now and I think it is going overboard.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
You have no idea of the disappointment and rage at those of us in the glbt community who have waited for a very long time, worked very hard for Obama, and felt like we got the back of his hand. Add to this, no leadership in the glbt community, and no leadership from the Dems on this issue, and you have something that is very passionately personal for us.
Instead of taking the time to go to posts that have a glbt theme, simply read the topics that interest you. If there aren't enough of them, supplement your reading with the volume of posts all over the net.
Some of us do not have very many posts addressing our concerns.
But to come on a glbt post and complain about that part of John's activism is offensive to those of us it matters to.
We understand that we are a low priority to some in the Progressive alliance. But that doesn't mean we are going to take the advice of those that have no idea of the personal relevance this has to many of us.
Look very carefully at how gays in America were treated only 40 years ago, including the treatment from allegedly enlightened people, and then tell us how we are over-reacting.
I think required reading, before any future complaints, should be the NY Daily News accounting of the Stonewall Riots from back in the day, and Frank Rich's column from Sunday.
Many straight people have no conception of what it is like to be a gay person in America.
Watching "Will & Grace" reruns doesn't count.
Terry Slusher
· 5 months ago
If critcising John's reporting as getting nit-picky is offinsive to you, I'm not the one that needs some sensitvity training. It seems the majority of those commenting on the tone and content of John's report trends in favor of it being a bit too far as opposed to simply being the proper balance. And drop the"oh you just don't understand being gay" bit, ok? Wait until gays can get married and then you get socked with lifetime alimony when you get divorced. Justifiable outrage is one thing when deserved. The "you just can't understand" is not.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
You come on here and suggest that gays actually have it better not being able to marry, because they don't have to face the horrors of divorce....and want to be taken seriously?
I need no sensitivity training. Not from you, at any rate.
If you just wanted to tell John to strike a proper balance, you would not have been on here defending someone who told him to "grow the fuck up."
You do not have a clue what it means to be gay and your lack of empathy drips through your condescension.
But keep commenting on a gay thread.
Obviously it must matter somewhat to you.
fritzrth
· 5 months ago
Why do you think it wasn't a gay rights group who's advising Obama on this?
"Which leads us to ask the question, yet again, just who is advising Obama on gay civil rights issues? If a gay rights group had done this, they'd be excoriated by the community. And rightly so."
They certainly haven't had our backs very well in the past, and their performance at the DNC fundraiser, and last night at the Get-'em-off-our-backs Champagne and Caviar Who-can-be-first-to-kiss-his-feet Obama love fest, hasn't shown them to be very supportive of we peons of the GLBT community.
I haven't seen very much excoriation going on, outside of certain gay circles, and even that has been full of Obamapologists.
RichardS
· 5 months ago
Well..... nothing new here. A lot of nice words, but just words...... I believe Obama said to the crowd ' you'll be happy in the end"........ the end of what? His second term? (assuming he is reelected) or the end of this term....3 years out? Why the hell couldn't he have said he was going to immediately issue a stop loss order vis a vis DADT? Why couldn't he have said he didn't agree with the DOJ brief on DMOA? It's all talk and no action and as long as the leaders of the LGBT community keep feeding at the Obama trough of sweet words and champagne DADT will remain in place (it's not like Obama is pushing congress to change it) and DOMA will continue to deny federal marriage benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
AdamBlast
· 5 months ago
So far I don't think holding Obama's feet to the fire necessitates paying much more attention to Monday's ridiculous charade. There were good reasons to go *and* good reasons to decline, and who did which is so "inside gay beltway" that I could care less. Obama's inaction is the point.
If you're looking to scandal-push from Monday, I think it's abhorrant that Ferhenbach was explicitly forbidden to wear his uniform by his superiors. Imagine that on any other issue.
latda
· 5 months ago
Hillary Clinton opened up this can of worms to push Obama to deal with this sooner than later by having the review of State and the enforcement of gay benefits. Hilda Solis came out yesterday and confronted the destruction of the gay pride posters at the Department of Labor. (She also started the Lesbian and Gay Caucus while in Congress.) Obama invited no one from the State Department or Department of Labor. Other Departments were invited. It wasn't just gay advocacy groups that got invitations.
latda
· 5 months ago
And in a defensive and preemptive stance (besides what I have already posted today): In the words of Joan Crawford, "This ain't my first time at the rodeo. Don't fuck with me fellows."
buckguy
· 5 months ago
Not quite sure what the point is.
Gay identification and homosexual behavior generally turn up twice as often among men than women. The 36% female figure fits that little factoid pretty well.
Currently, the LGBT orgs are largely headed by men. A decade ago, most were heade by women. Is there anything wrong with either of those occurrences? My guess is that AIDS curtailed the growth of leadership among a generation of men and that's why so many women wound up in leadership. Now, things have reverted back to what one might expect given the larger proportion of gay males. Moreover, many lesbians have put their energy into the women's movement rather than GLBT orgs. That's probably added to the inward looking upper middle class insularity of women's orgs, but that's a different issue.
Jon is clearly getting a little off the tracs here. I wasn't expecting things to cahnge over night with Obama, but he has been a disappointment. Unfortunately, columns like this don't help.
Steve
· 5 months ago
John, you are assuming that the sex ratio of the gay community is 50-50, but the best evidence says otherwise. The massive University of Chicago sex survey, consistent with smaller surveys, found that there were about twice as many gay men as lesbians in the general population. Why? Unclear. Biological difference? Subordination of women? Regardless, if the Chicago survey is accurate, then the 36% figure here is consistent with it.
EML
· 5 months ago
Biological anthropologist account for this by noting that all fetuses are females until a genetic trigger is turned on at about 5 to 6 weeks of growth. Therefore, the fetus that becomes male might have more variety than a fetus that stays female.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
No, I'm assuming that in normal, civilized, non-sexist society you make a point of inviting roughly equal numbers of gay men and lesbians to major civil rights events, and not 2-1 men to women.
vkobaya
· 5 months ago
normal, civilized, non-sexist society
You mean like in utopia?
vkobaya
· 5 months ago
Sorry! Yeah, you are right. 36% is reality, but we are talking about looking for an ideologically perfect world. Whatever Obama's feeling about gays, you would hope that he would support sexual equality. Then again, I am beginning to wonder if he is even pro-civil rights for Blacks. Sigh! He's definitely not liberal, not even left-moderate. Just that his behavior has us all questioning how far to the right of moderate he is.
Your greater point is true. Women are 50% of the population, actually 51%. It is disgustingly sexist in this day and age that women are blocked again and again from leadership roles. I find the vicious, hateful, barbaric, sexist attacks on Sotomayor to be disgusting and should shame even Neanderthal cavemen. Is there anywhere in this nation where women are equally represented in leadership roles, any city, state or corporation? Maybe, but those are flukes. Sigh!
vkobaya
· 5 months ago
And, of course, you are just doing what I've been advocating for a long time, that is broadening our perspective to include others on left under our umbrella. Only when all the single issue groups under the liberal umbrella work together will we be able to achieve real progress. Each fragmented group looking out only for ourselves and refusing to reach out to other issue groups will continue to fail to achieve either their own agenda or that of anyone else on the left.
Steve
· 5 months ago
Move to strike as non-responsive. Lesbians aren't 50 percent of the gay community. Thus, it is not "sexist" to invite without an artificial 50 percent quota.
Steve
· 5 months ago
Put differently, you're asserting that it is sexist if one doesn't deliberately over-invite women and deliberately under-invite men. Really?
Is it also sexist to honor returning war veterans without artificially creating a 50-50 sex ratio among the honorees, or to host an event for survivors or rape or domestic violence without artificially making sure half the survivors are men?
EML
· 4 months ago
John, as a rabid feminist, I'm certainly not going to disagree with you. In support of your arguement, I would note that new research seems to indicate that female sexuality is much more fluid than that of males, gay or straight. So, in terms of what might be called situational bisexuality, women might be more open to it than they admit. It somewhat plays into heterosexual male fantasies, but there you have it.
EML
· 4 months ago
Oh and one more thought John. The political agenda for gay males and lesbians is a lot closer than those of straight males and straight females. Even though I do not have a "dog in this fight," I suspect that because the two agendas are so closely alligned for most things, gender parity might not be that important at least initially.
Chicagogo
· 5 months ago
I totally concur with this. The best evidence suggests there are simply more gay men than there are lesbians. So it becomes ridiculous to try to force parity on the basis of sex when populating boards, events, etc.
mtiffany
· 5 months ago
Uhm... so what? Thirty-six percent women invitees to the WH gay event is exactly double the percentage of women serving in both the House and Senate.
Women were better represented at that event than they are in the US Congress...
Barney
· 5 months ago
Ain't nobody advising the obamanation on gay rights. If someone is, he ain't listening. Think he'll do something for you in his second term? Why does he have to? He'll be the lame duck!! Didn't NOBAMA say if something don't work, scrap it and get something that does? He called that change. He continues the same trend as did Mr Bush and has changed nothing, nor will he. You guys spent a hell of a lot of money putting him in the WH, feeling ripped off yet?
dcinsider
· 5 months ago
John - This one is a real stretch.
Wells
· 5 months ago
The list is not invitees but attendees (for White House statement purposes they were in the category of "invited guests", not staffers or other dignitaries.) But that's not necessarily the complete list of people who were invited - maybe more women than men chose to skip the event or were unable to come. Don't let the facts interfere with your Obama jihad, though.
peterleahy
· 5 months ago
Why do we celebrate Stonewall at all? It is like celebrating a slave rebellion - nice start but 100 years before anything consequential happens.
The African-American community in the US if it celebrates any day it is MLK Jr.'s Birthday -- someone who lead the moral OUTRAGE, PROTESTS and worked for the legislative BATTLE for civil rights. To bad we have not created a central, persuasive, pivotal leader for the rest of the US to identify with our struggle. Milk has been dead for 30 years.
The other day of celebration is Juneteeth where African-American's celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation a questionably "illegal" action/EXECUTIVE ORDER by the PRESIDENT to use his war powers to end slavery in the successionist south. It was two half steps, it did not do everything but it was a start and eventually lead to amendments to the constitution to enshrine and protect those rights (plus another 100+ year struggle to fight for defacto equality).
If Lincoln could put the first nail in the coffin with the Emancipation Proclamation -- why can't Obama do the same for our rights or DADT? Who do we really have to lead us? How many Matthew Shepards will it take to get our own community leaders off their behinds to shame this government and congress into action?
We need to protest Harry Reid and get a vote in the Senate NOW on the Hate Crimes bill. If it fails take names and excoriate the NO votes until they change or are kicked from office. For HRC's almost 30 years -- it has no significant legislative victory for our rights. Do it now or close the doors.
peterleahy
· 5 months ago
And AIDS Legislation does not count as civil rights for LGBT community. It plays into our victim status vs. recognizing us as worthy equal citizens.
kfbrad01
· 5 months ago
I'm usually with you on these issues, John, but I do think this is pushing it - and worse, it seems kind of petty. Do we know that the number of out lesbians in public affairs is equal to the number of out gay men in public affairs? I would imagine that they would be more likely to take a look at individuals and their role in the political world, rather than thinking to themselves - "well, we invited 63 lesbians - make sure that we only get 63 gay men as well. Anyone over 63, strike them off the list." Do we need to get 63 bisexual individuals / transgendered / bicurious? Then do we start examining the percentages of transgendered individuals compared to the larger LGBT population, and allot invitations that way? It just seems like you are overthinking that part rather than focusing on the speech itself (and all the flaws I noticed there!).
Name
· 5 months ago
You seem to assume that there is an equal number of gay men and lesbians in the world. From the statistics I've seen, I think this *is* a representative sample - around 1.8 gay men for every 1 lesbian woman.
nicho
· 5 months ago
And, of course, you have a link to those "statistics." Don't you?
delta
· 5 months ago
It's extremely difficult to get accurate demographic figures for gay men and lesbians, as indicated in some of the surveys and comments found at this link.
Although it is largely anecdotal, I agree with the above post that there are more men who self-identify as gay than women who self-identify as lesbian. But all this just illustrates the absurdity of trying to make something of how many individuals of each gender were invited. It would be one thing if prominent lesbian leaders or women were blacklisted from the event--or if particularly vocal and critical members of the LGBT community at large were restricted. But I haven't heard anyone, even at this website, making that argument.
owl06
· 5 months ago
A little nit-picky, don't you think?
nicho
· 5 months ago
No
Clem
· 5 months ago
I agree Name, there are a lot more gay men than lesbians. Men far outnumbered women at the Pride Parade in NYC this weekend, at the numerous gay marriage rallies I've attended, there are more gay men's groups, more men than women involved in a lot of the political organizations....
erip
· 5 months ago
We don't need to be meanspirited clem, but where on earth did you get you statistics that there are lots more gay men than lesbians?..sounds like you do republican math (you know, 9 judges overturned sotomayor's decision) If we assume that gay people make up roughly 10 percent of the population and 51% of the population is women, than there would be a pretty equal distribution of gay men and lesbians in the general population. Just depends where you look (like at the obama tea party).. I was on christopher street this weekend for the same parade you were and if i use your logic, i might say that the gay population is made up of mostly drunk lesbians of color..or if i went to the pier dance i could say that the gay population is made up of twinkie white boys.. the point that John is making is that the white house is getting very bad advice on gay issues and just can't seem to figure out a way to address the community as a whole in an intelligent manner.
Clem
· 5 months ago
Not that who I am should make a difference, but I'm a bisexual woman, have been with my girlfriend for over 30 years, and am far to the left of Obama. I can't pull any cites out of my hat, but I have repeatedly read that lesbians make up approximately 5% of the population, while gay men number more like 10% of the population. And based on my personal observations and experiences, there are just a lot more gay men out there than lesbians, particularly in political and gay rihgts organizations.
thetruthhurts99
· 5 months ago
Um ok---next are you gonna find some issue with the appetizers being served at the party (only 10% cheese!) ... or how many blondes vs. brunettes?
Guest
· 5 months ago
Hmm. Maybe you should re-read the blog.
Paul Foley
· 5 months ago
Do we REALLY want to get caught up in the minutae of numbers like this? What about who was Bi, and who was Trans, and who is Questioning? Race? etc.
Folks, let's focus on WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and also the March on Washington in October. Counting heads at a WH Photo Op with BHO is not all that important to the big picture, IMHO. It's just another bone being thrown to a snarling dog to buy some more time and good will.
PASS ENDA at the very least this year.
Kirsti
· 5 months ago
According to the report from Rev. Elder Darlene Garner of Metropolitan Community Churches, who attended the event, "at least one third of those present were people of color."
I've been in agreement with you almost entirely on this, but I think you are starting to dig a little too deeply and it hurts your credibility.
latda
· 5 months ago
Why is this topic "digging too deeply"?
bradk8
· 5 months ago
Perhaps digging too deeply was the wrong wording. More like nitpicking. It takes the discussion away from the bigger and more important issues and looks a little petty.
latda
· 5 months ago
Wow, bradk, those are some of the same things that have been said about the LGBT community in our demands: "nitpicking" and "more important issues" and "petty". I would assume that some of you might not know that the ERA still has not been ratified by a few states. That ratification will only benefit the gay and lesbian community. Some of you might want to dig a little deeper.
bradk8
· 5 months ago
I have actually been in 100% agreement with everything John has written about the Obama administration in regards to gay rights. I don't think anything we are asking for or are upset over are petty or nitpicking and I've never said that. I'm just saying we should stay focused on those issues rather than digging around after every possible llittle side quibble we can find. Not enough women on the invite list? I'm sure they invited all the leading figures in our movement and if not enough of them are women, that seems to be a problem with our movement. Maybe if someone can come up with a list of prominent women in our movement that were overlooked then there is something there, but I sincerely doubt that is the case.
Listen, as a gay man who has been with my partner for 15 years, and just having celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary (not a legal one) this past Saturday, and being residents of California, a state where we so briefly had the opportnunity to make it legal, only to have our fellow citizens vote to take that right away from us, I am extremely upset at the Obama administration. Throw in the fact that my husband was here illegally from Mexico when I met him, and for our first ten years together we lived under the fear of deportation, I take marriage equalilty very seriously. Luckily for us, after thousands and thousands of dollars paid to an immigration lawyer, we were lucky enough to have my husband granted asylum, so we no longer face that looming threat that so many other couples do.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
So you think it's normal to create a guest list for a civil rights event at the White House and invite nearly 2 to 1 women? I suggest you ask some lesbian friends what they think about that percentage, then get back to me.
bradk8
· 5 months ago
I'm with you every step of the way in every critcism of this administration as it relates to gay rights. I'm sure they have a pretty good list of the top gay rights organizations and prominent leaders and they invited them all. If they were inviting just a random group of gays and lesbians, then by all means, that ratio would be absolutely insulting. But if they invited the top people at gay rights groups, top gay writers, top gay bloggers, I think this just may reflect a poor ratio of men to women within the leadership of our movement. You know who's who in the gay rights movement far, far better than I would ever even come close to, so maybe there are a large number of prominent lesbians who feel they should have been invited and weren't. If that is the case, I apologize profusely! I personally don't think anyone should have accepted an invitation to this. If he had invited a small group of prominent gay rights leaders to a lengthy face to face sit-down to discuss why we are upset, yes. But to invite a couple hundred people just to hear a rosy speech basically telling us we'll be happy with Obama "eventually" is a joke.
Your work on Americablog is incredibly important and valuable to me and I thank you for doing what you do.
Ron Ritchhart
· 5 months ago
Of course lesbian's wouldn't like it, but did you check the guest list to see how many bisexuals and trans were on the list? would you expect it to be 25% for each group to be "fair"? Most stats seem to report that there are more gay men than lesbians. So would you expect the same representation as in a straight crowd?
barts
· 5 months ago
A lot of heads a-rolling on this thread, but John's main point is that if the Obama admin were really serious about lgbt rights NO body would have been blacklisted!
MikeMc
· 5 months ago
I heard they only invited members of the powerful gay and lesbian free mason community! I also have some theories about the symbols on the dollar bill. Lets just say you wont sleep tonight!
willd
· 5 months ago
It's reigning men, hallelujah it's reigning men!
usagi
· 5 months ago
Brother, talk about people not getting the point. Look at the basic premise: when a big liberal group or politician holds a public event, they try to get a representative mix of people showing up. That means you pay attention to how many women you have, or haven't, invited, how many African-Americans, etc. You may like that or you may not; it's a true statement. It's especially true in a damage-control photo op meeting like this. Once again, the Obama White House screwed it up. That's the point. They're playing amateur hour with what used to be one of their core communities.
caphillprof
· 5 months ago
I'm beginning to think the West Wing is hiring ringers to comment on Americablog. I cannot believe so many folk would not be upset by their marriages being compared to incest and pedophilia or by their newly elected politicians failing to deliver. There an artificiality about the folk that are pleased as punch to have had a cocktail at the White House.
Steve
· 5 months ago
They did that during the campaign. Why wouldn't they continue doing it? I just assume anyone who spouts canned White House spin is a plant.
srb
· 5 months ago
And how many regular female contributors does this blog have?
joetex
· 4 months ago
Disappointed by this post because of the obvious faulty logic by Aravosis, and of course sad that "gay men are dramatically underrepresented yet again in GLBT political discourse in order to maintain political correctness."
If I look at a recent archives of sexual behavior article on prevalence of homosexuality http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844 for practicing homosexuals (e.g. ones who are actively discriminated against in marriage and military), then the "correct" ratio would have been 135 men and 41 women. Using this logic women were over-represented in the number present. There were 22 "too many" women and "too few" men.
If I consider this is a celebration of Stonewall, I could go further, and consider how many men protested at Stonewall, and how many women protested at Stonewall. I think the proportional female representation would shrink dramatically. Those valiant, endearing, queeny men who were perhaps 100% of those who back in the gay bar are forced to take a backseat in their own celebration. From that perspective there were 63 too many women present.
Of course, there weren't too many women present, or too few. There's no consensus on how many should be present vis-a-vis a testable standard.
The concept of quotas in this kind of situation is noxious because anyone who believes their agenda is the testable representative order will argue a deficiency, and it deflects the discourse from the real issues at hand.
All Comments
I don't know about the ratio of gay men to gay women, but my experience has always been -- in 27 years of being involved in gay issues -- that lesbians who are active politically fay outnumber gay men who are active politically. So, you would even have expected the balance to tilt the other way.
Good catch.
Meanwhile we have police forces across the country attacking gays: in a bar in Ft. Worth and at a political fundraiser in Encinatas and not protecting a gay man harassed by a gang of Somali immigrant children in Minneapolis. This is all part of a piece crying out for leadership, which we don't have in the White House, nor at the HRC.
and frankly, i don't see why it shouldn't be open season on the whole administration until we hear an apology or explanation for the DOMA brief. then a meaningful conversation about DADT. I'm too much of a coward to be leading the attacks, but i don't mind somebody else doing it.
The President's behavior is still clearly inconsistent when it comes to establishing equal rights for LGBT Americans. I think the cocktail commemoration - or however they were billing it - was designed to miss the evening news cycle ... on a Monday night, no less.
I don't care if John seems nitpicky ... his comments are symptomatic of the fact that the gay soiree didn't get us a thing. The President didn't commit to taking any substantive action personally.
(a good time was had by all . . .) (sigh)
For those who are complaining about John's choice of subject and statistics:
"(Perhaps all the lesbians got too uppity about their civil rights and got blacklisted too.)"
=======================================================
Wouldn't you be a bit upset with this administration if you spent countless hours and days helping this man get elected and raising $50,000 dollars for his campaign only to be "blacklisted" from any Obama function only because John, Joe and Chris had the cojones to speak out against this administration because of it drifting so far away from its promises? They essentially gave him the finger no matter what AmericaBlog or John et al did personally. I think he has every right to point out how much of a fraud Obama is and his administration until they actually do something to make us equal with other citizens.
A. Swayne, Baltmd
Pot, kettle.
There are very few places on the net to hear this grievance. You have virtually the entire gamut of blog sites to pursue your interests.
To criticize John for covering an undercovered story that has great interest for many of his readers (who are part of the glbt community) is your prerogative.
It is also your prerogative to move on.
This is a nice way of saying, it matters to me, and if you don't like it, we could care less about your concerns, as well.
The Internet is a big place...take advantage of it.
And please close the door on your way out.
PS: I realize that's a little off the point of this thread. so my point is that when you read a righteous rant that seems to go too far in your opinion, why not just say it's gone too far instead of getting indignant and insulting? where is the indignation coming from?
For a gay American to tell John to "grow the fuck up" reveals far more about you than it does about him.
What some people call 'patience' others call 'appeasement.'
But, if you think I, or any self-respecting gay person is going to respond respectfully to somebody who writes "grow the fuck up" you need a little bit of sensitivity training.
If you have read what I have written, you will note that I have responded to those who go out of their way to come to a glbt-specific post, and then complain that there was such a post in the first place.
The people who complain have no idea about the lack of coverage glbt issues get on the vast majority of Progressive blogs. And then we get personally attacked in the forums by those who act as if we have gall for being at odds with the man we helped elect.
I am not just enraged at Obama, but at the entire Democratic Party. Pretty soon the capitulation will also be in on health care...it all blends together, after awhile. What is becoming more apparent, is that there is not all that much of a difference between corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats.
Additionally, I came out a little over 15 years ago, while in my 30s, but I know my history. Prior to Stonewall, Democrats and Republicans equally treated gay people abhorrently. Being gay was a crime in most places and often treated with shock therapy and lobotomies.
While attitudes today are better, there is much homophobia in Democratic enclaves, like the latino and African-American communities. So much so, that I really feel for my Hispanic and African-American gay brothers and sisters.
In fact, I heard someone today discuss a survey (I believe on the Stephanie Miller show, talking to Hal Sparks) that showed that even the majority of Democratic respondents in a poll did not think that the love between gays was the equivalent of heterosexual love. And therein lies much of the problem.
My point is that we cannot rely on others to do the right thing. Those who have a true Progressive agenda will be supportive, but if folks are not, we have no control over that.
Being pacifistic, and shutting up and rolling over is not the answer. Especially to try and gain the support of people who have no concept, or regard, for our struggle to begin with.
I am not an extremist. I work in the media and have as many straight friends as gay. But I am getting real tired of the status quo in this country, which is so behind every other Western nation.
I appreciate being able to express some of that anger, which has been missing from the glbt community for far too long.
For something so 'unreadable,' you have chosen to focus in on it.
Instead of taking the time to go to posts that have a glbt theme, simply read the topics that interest you. If there aren't enough of them, supplement your reading with the volume of posts all over the net.
Some of us do not have very many posts addressing our concerns.
But to come on a glbt post and complain about that part of John's activism is offensive to those of us it matters to.
We understand that we are a low priority to some in the Progressive alliance. But that doesn't mean we are going to take the advice of those that have no idea of the personal relevance this has to many of us.
Look very carefully at how gays in America were treated only 40 years ago, including the treatment from allegedly enlightened people, and then tell us how we are over-reacting.
I think required reading, before any future complaints, should be the NY Daily News accounting of the Stonewall Riots from back in the day, and Frank Rich's column from Sunday.
Many straight people have no conception of what it is like to be a gay person in America.
Watching "Will & Grace" reruns doesn't count.
I need no sensitivity training. Not from you, at any rate.
If you just wanted to tell John to strike a proper balance, you would not have been on here defending someone who told him to "grow the fuck up."
You do not have a clue what it means to be gay and your lack of empathy drips through your condescension.
But keep commenting on a gay thread.
Obviously it must matter somewhat to you.
"Which leads us to ask the question, yet again, just who is advising Obama on gay civil rights issues? If a gay rights group had done this, they'd be excoriated by the community. And rightly so."
They certainly haven't had our backs very well in the past, and their performance at the DNC fundraiser, and last night at the Get-'em-off-our-backs Champagne and Caviar Who-can-be-first-to-kiss-his-feet Obama love fest, hasn't shown them to be very supportive of we peons of the GLBT community.
I haven't seen very much excoriation going on, outside of certain gay circles, and even that has been full of Obamapologists.
If you're looking to scandal-push from Monday, I think it's abhorrant that Ferhenbach was explicitly forbidden to wear his uniform by his superiors. Imagine that on any other issue.
Gay identification and homosexual behavior generally turn up twice as often among men than women. The 36% female figure fits that little factoid pretty well.
Currently, the LGBT orgs are largely headed by men. A decade ago, most were heade by women. Is there anything wrong with either of those occurrences? My guess is that AIDS curtailed the growth of leadership among a generation of men and that's why so many women wound up in leadership. Now, things have reverted back to what one might expect given the larger proportion of gay males. Moreover, many lesbians have put their energy into the women's movement rather than GLBT orgs. That's probably added to the inward looking upper middle class insularity of women's orgs, but that's a different issue.
Jon is clearly getting a little off the tracs here. I wasn't expecting things to cahnge over night with Obama, but he has been a disappointment. Unfortunately, columns like this don't help.
You mean like in utopia?
Your greater point is true. Women are 50% of the population, actually 51%. It is disgustingly sexist in this day and age that women are blocked again and again from leadership roles. I find the vicious, hateful, barbaric, sexist attacks on Sotomayor to be disgusting and should shame even Neanderthal cavemen. Is there anywhere in this nation where women are equally represented in leadership roles, any city, state or corporation? Maybe, but those are flukes. Sigh!
Is it also sexist to honor returning war veterans without artificially creating a 50-50 sex ratio among the honorees, or to host an event for survivors or rape or domestic violence without artificially making sure half the survivors are men?
Women were better represented at that event than they are in the US Congress...
Didn't NOBAMA say if something don't work, scrap it and get something that does? He called that change. He continues the same trend as did Mr Bush and has changed nothing, nor will he. You guys spent a hell of a lot of money putting him in the WH, feeling ripped off yet?
The African-American community in the US if it celebrates any day it is MLK Jr.'s Birthday -- someone who lead the moral OUTRAGE, PROTESTS and worked for the legislative BATTLE for civil rights. To bad we have not created a central, persuasive, pivotal leader for the rest of the US to identify with our struggle. Milk has been dead for 30 years.
The other day of celebration is Juneteeth where African-American's celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation a questionably "illegal" action/EXECUTIVE ORDER by the PRESIDENT to use his war powers to end slavery in the successionist south. It was two half steps, it did not do everything but it was a start and eventually lead to amendments to the constitution to enshrine and protect those rights (plus another 100+ year struggle to fight for defacto equality).
If Lincoln could put the first nail in the coffin with the Emancipation Proclamation -- why can't Obama do the same for our rights or DADT? Who do we really have to lead us? How many Matthew Shepards will it take to get our own community leaders off their behinds to shame this government and congress into action?
We need to protest Harry Reid and get a vote in the Senate NOW on the Hate Crimes bill. If it fails take names and excoriate the NO votes until they change or are kicked from office. For HRC's almost 30 years -- it has no significant legislative victory for our rights. Do it now or close the doors.
Do we know that the number of out lesbians in public affairs is equal to the number of out gay men in public affairs? I would imagine that they would be more likely to take a look at individuals and their role in the political world, rather than thinking to themselves - "well, we invited 63 lesbians - make sure that we only get 63 gay men as well. Anyone over 63, strike them off the list." Do we need to get 63 bisexual individuals / transgendered / bicurious? Then do we start examining the percentages of transgendered individuals compared to the larger LGBT population, and allot invitations that way? It just seems like you are overthinking that part rather than focusing on the speech itself (and all the flaws I noticed there!).
http://www.plu.sg/main/facts_05.htm
Although it is largely anecdotal, I agree with the above post that there are more men who self-identify as gay than women who self-identify as lesbian. But all this just illustrates the absurdity of trying to make something of how many individuals of each gender were invited. It would be one thing if prominent lesbian leaders or women were blacklisted from the event--or if particularly vocal and critical members of the LGBT community at large were restricted. But I haven't heard anyone, even at this website, making that argument.
Folks, let's focus on WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and also the March on Washington in October. Counting heads at a WH Photo Op with BHO is not all that important to the big picture, IMHO. It's just another bone being thrown to a snarling dog to buy some more time and good will.
PASS ENDA at the very least this year.
More from a first hand viewpoint is here:
http://mccchurches.blogspot.com/2009/06/highlig...
Listen, as a gay man who has been with my partner for 15 years, and just having celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary (not a legal one) this past Saturday, and being residents of California, a state where we so briefly had the opportnunity to make it legal, only to have our fellow citizens vote to take that right away from us, I am extremely upset at the Obama administration. Throw in the fact that my husband was here illegally from Mexico when I met him, and for our first ten years together we lived under the fear of deportation, I take marriage equalilty very seriously. Luckily for us, after thousands and thousands of dollars paid to an immigration lawyer, we were lucky enough to have my husband granted asylum, so we no longer face that looming threat that so many other couples do.
to face sit-down to discuss why we are upset, yes. But to invite a couple hundred people just to hear a rosy speech basically telling us we'll be happy with Obama "eventually" is a joke.
Your work on Americablog is incredibly important and valuable to me and I thank you for doing what you do.
If I look at a recent archives of sexual behavior article on prevalence of homosexuality http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844 for practicing homosexuals (e.g. ones who are actively discriminated against in marriage and military), then the "correct" ratio would have been 135 men and 41 women. Using this logic women were over-represented in the number present. There were 22 "too many" women and "too few" men.
If I consider this is a celebration of Stonewall, I could go further, and consider how many men protested at Stonewall, and how many women protested at Stonewall. I think the proportional female representation would shrink dramatically. Those valiant, endearing, queeny men who were perhaps 100% of those who back in the gay bar are forced to take a backseat in their own celebration. From that perspective there were 63 too many women present.
Of course, there weren't too many women present, or too few. There's no consensus on how many should be present vis-a-vis a testable standard.
The concept of quotas in this kind of situation is noxious because anyone who believes their agenda is the testable representative order will argue a deficiency, and it deflects the discourse from the real issues at hand.