So I recently saw this shared on Facebook by a friend of mine:



Now, I feel like I need to preface my point with the following:

I believe that the LGBT community should be able to express pride
I understand that the LGBT community has faced, and continues to face, greater persecution than heterosexuals
I believe that LGBT people are deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals

With this in mind, to me it seems that the above post is an attempt to shame heterosexuals from expressing any sort of pride of their own. Such shaming is made on the basis that as heterosexuals do not face adversity for their sexual orientation, they are not entitled to pride. That by allowing those viewed to be in the superior position to express pride for their own identity, it diminishes the importance of the LGBT movement.

The same can be seen with men and women. For example, in 2015 the University of York cancelled International men's day due to an open letter signed by staff, students and alumni. Such a letter was written under the impression that recognition of men's rights would not diminish the gap between genders, but would instead widen it. Again, such a belief is formed on the idea that the issues of men should not be recognised due to the perceived greater struggle faced by women.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/17/row-after-university-of-york-cancels-international-mens-day-event

To me, in both these cases it appears that those who are seen to be privileged within society face less adversity. As a result, this lack of adversity means that the issues of the privileged are not as important, and that they are not entitled to pride. This lack of importance then leads to permitted shaming. A heterosexual should feel ashamed for feeling proud of their sexuality, and should be discouraged from expressing such pride. Likewise, a man should feel ashamed for trying to draw attention to his own difficulties as those of the other gender are seen to far outweigh his own.

What do you guys think? Should straight men be able to feel happy with their gender or orientation and say as much, or should they instead keep quiet instead because they'd be drowning out the voices of other genders and orientations.

I think where people get mixed up is that, when it comes to groups talking about pride, what they are really talking about is acceptance. So the old black pride movement, or the modern gay pride movement, was/is all about reaching out to folks who might feel shitty or ashamed of their status and getting them to accept that they have as much value as the majority population. It's pride as in bringing yourself up to equal status with the majority.

But actual pride, as feeling that the difference between you and another group puts you in a superior position, is something else. The White pride movement, for instance, would have more in common with the Black supremacy movement then black pride. There is really no need for a heterosexual acceptance movement because... yeh, we're pretty accepted. So we don't need to foster an acceptance of equality with the majority because... well, we are the majority. So all that is left is line-drawing at best, or if we are to be real about it, bringing ourselves up to a feeling of superiority.

This is where I think modern identity politics veers way off. It's useful to find socially minimized groups and say "Yeh, be proud that you are equal to the rest of us." But when you step off that path you just divvy up society in ways that aren't necessary. And you can say that about even the minimized groups when pride starts to seem more like secession.

So yeh, I'm heterosexual and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not going to turn it into a big thing though, start getting ">" bumper stickers and get straight pride shirts, because that seems weirdly secessionist. I'll stick to smiling at tits.

I think where people get mixed up is that, when it comes to groups talking about pride, what they are really talking about is acceptance. So the old black pride movement, or the modern gay pride movement, was/is all about reaching out to folks who might feel shitty or ashamed of their status and getting them to accept that they have as much value as the majority population. It's pride as in bringing yourself up to equal status with the majority.

But actual pride, as feeling that the difference between you and another group puts you in a superior position, is something else. The White pride movement, for instance, would have more in common with the Black supremacy movement then black pride. There is really no need for a heterosexual acceptance movement because... yeh, we're pretty accepted. So we don't need to foster an acceptance of equality with the majority because... well, we are the majority. So all that is left is line-drawing at best, or if we are to be real about it, bringing ourselves up to a feeling of superiority.

This is where I think modern identity politics veers way off. It's useful to find socially minimized groups and say "Yeh, be proud that you are equal to the rest of us." But when you step off that path you just divvy up society in ways that aren't necessary. And you can say that about even the minimized groups when pride starts to seem more like secession.

So yeh, I'm heterosexual and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not going to turn it into a big thing though, start getting ">" bumper stickers and get straight pride shirts, because that seems weirdly secessionist. I'll stick to smiling at tits.

This was a good post, thank you.

Pride in a social majority is a difficult thing to encourage, as you said. White pride groups, for instance, seem to focus more on racial superiority and exclusion rather than a celebration of self-identity. This is a reprehensible position to take, and not one that should be encouraged amongst any group.

With that in mind, is it possible for a pride movement to occur that isn't fixated on 'other' group dynamics? Where instead of trying to bolster your position so that you feel as if you are on an equal footing with a different group, or, in the case of those in a superior/majority position, establish dominance, you simply celebrate your self-identity? That, to me, would seem fair.

For example, there is independence day within the US. This is a day of pride and celebration for those who identify themselves as American citizens, who form the vast majority of US residents. However, there are also those who live within the US who do not identify themselves as US citizens. Mexicans, Europeans, Canadians, whatever it may. Not to be flippant, but according to your definition, this would be a celebration where the majority is expressing pride in their identity and thus, establishing superiority over the minority. However, I personally see it as a celebration that does not detract from those who identify contrary to the majority. It is one where US citizens feel pride in their identity, but a pride that does not pose a threat to others.

With this in mind, isn't it possible that a member of the majority (heterosexuals) could express pride without it posing a threat to others?

this belongs in bitchfest or unpopular opinions

this belongs in bitchfest or unpopular opinions

I'm quite happy with it being where it is, thank you

There's an image going around from tumblr that basically explains it. It's from the point of view of a physically disabled person who had to deal with similar reactions over their disability.



What people aren't understanding is that black people and gay people aren't getting preferred attention or bonuses. The 'bonuses' they're getting comes with a FUCK ton of baggage.

And on top of that this is two weeks after 49 queer men and women were killed.

That is why people cringe at the concept. We have these things because we are literally being murdered for existing. Heterosexual people don't have to deal with that.

We would love to not have to need or want parades and history months. But the Pulse incident proved we're a long way from not needing it.

For example, there is independence day within the US. This is a day of pride and celebration for those who identify themselves as American citizens, who form the vast majority of US residents. However, there are also those who live within the US who do not identify themselves as US citizens. Mexicans, Europeans, Canadians, whatever it may. Not to be flippant, but according to your definition, this would be a celebration where the majority is expressing pride in their identity and thus, establishing superiority over the minority. However, I personally see it as a celebration that does not detract from those who identify contrary to the majority. It is one where US citizens feel pride in their identity, but a pride that does not pose a threat to others.

With this in mind, isn't it possible that a member of the majority (heterosexuals) could express pride without it posing a threat to others?

I think that the Fourth of July largely is, as it goes, a celebration of what makes us different and, by proxy, why we might prefer the United States over other countries. It doesn't mean we are threatening the others necessarily, but when you listen to the rhetoric that comes with celebrating being an American, it is always saying stuff America is like "A free country." and all that with the implication that this is a unique quality. And I do think it would be healthy if we toned down our rhetoric in general because I think nationalism leads to delusional thinking. Mind that I'm not saying the fourth should be banned, because when you strip away the rhetoric you still get a summer holiday where you blow shit up and eat barbecue with friends and family, and I'd have to be a sad fuck to poopoo those things. But if you look at patriotism and extend the same practices and assumptions to a pro-heterosexuality movement, you can see how it could get awkward.

Which I guess comes down to what you want to do. If you don't want to draw lines, say "We make babies and you don't" or whatever, then what exactly does a Hetero-pride movement achieve? If you want to meet other heteros... well, that is easy. Hopefully nobody is shaming you for your heterosexuality, in which case you wouldn't need the solidarity part of it. Is it just that you want a parade? Because there are less controversial ways to get a parade. Or do you feel left out because people from other groups are posting X-Pride and you're checking in the majority boxes all the way? Because if that is true it would be a really interesting sociological thing (I feel left out of being left out.) I dunno how you could fix that. Another hobby I guess?

<Snipped quote by Rocketman>

I think that the Fourth of July largely is, as it goes, a celebration of what makes us different and, by proxy, why we might prefer the United States over other countries. It doesn't mean we are threatening the others necessarily, but when you listen to the rhetoric that comes with celebrating being an American, it is always saying stuff America is like "A free country." and all that with the implication that this is a unique quality. And I do think it would be healthy if we toned down our rhetoric in general because I think nationalism leads to delusional thinking. Mind that I'm not saying the fourth should be banned, because when you strip away the rhetoric you still get a summer holiday where you blow shit up and eat barbecue with friends and family, and I'd have to be a sad fuck to poopoo those things. But if you look at patriotism and extend the same practices and assumptions to a pro-heterosexuality movement, you can see how it could get awkward.

On the subject of the rhetoric, I suppose if you want to *change* it or approach the American identity in a certain way if you feel the current means is too nationalistic then you could change up some of the rituals. Not saying get rid of the fire-works but also adapt something like a ritual bible burning. Not something organized to destroy an object out of malice but a ritual established to force an individual to not regard a thing as a physical thing, and that its qualities as a physical object is unimportant. Thereby forcing the individual to acknowledge the philosophical identity behind it when its physical existence is destroyed and rendered meaningless.

I think I talked about this once with you over Steam but re-iterate here for the lay folk.

A ritual burning of something - in the above case the bible - isn't to be organized as an annihilation in its entirety a physical manifestation of something considered bad, but a calculated endeavor to destroy what many might regard as the sole purpose of something as purely a symbol and turn that over into having to contemplate or approach the philosophical meaning that's actually inside what is being destroyed. It comes down to a weakly translated Buddhist approach to "Kill the Buddha", where you don't actually kill a Buddha for the sake of destroying it, but metaphorically destroy the concept and idol of this idea of perfection so it's not distracting so you can get to the meaning behind it.

Burning the bible in ritual is not destroying the book for the sake of destroying it, but destroying it to get attachment for the symbol out of the way to approach the meaning behind the book and perhaps leave a more "Christian" life in the same way a Buddhist may supposedly live a more Buddhist life, free of attachment and ego.

To round this back to the selected portion of Vilage's post and perhaps to the point on hand: you could theoretically adapt the same principle in addressing the philosophy of a nation by ritually destroying the symbols of the nation so as to learn to give up these physical symbols and attachment over these strictly and to force yourself to then face the philosophy behind what it is your burning as the only thing left from it. I joked to Vilage once that we should ritually burn copies of the Constitution to remove the idea of the Constitution itself so as to leave behind only the meaning of the document instead (then carried on in effect that people might get carried away and assault the National Library to burn the real one and all of that because we took it far too out of hand into straight-up Iconoclasm).

Coming back to X-Pride movements, I suppose the same principle could be executed as a re-direct if the movements, or should the movements lose touch with what the fuck is really going on. It'd just have to come down to how do you do it in such a way, and at such a time that everyone reaches the same conclusion and all things are good.

I don't know about that, but maybe we can start on the Fourth of July. Maybe burn if effigy the Deceleration of Independence while chanting, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men (or persons (if you want to go that far)) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I'm supposed to be sleeping right now, but instead I'm getting carried away with this -.-

There's an image going around from tumblr that basically explains it. It's from the point of view of a physically disabled person who had to deal with similar reactions over their disability.

I may be misinterpreting this, but I can't help but feel that I am being likened to the stereotypical 80's villains here. I'm sure it wasn't intended though. Now, bullying and teasing are condemnable. The kids in question involved in this scenario sound incredibly unreasonable, and I would hope are not seen as being representative of other able bodied individuals, nor are they representative I would think of the majority of heterosexuals.

What I take issue with personally is the writer of this post using the words "moaning and whining" when it comes to straight pride. This kind of language only serves to discredit the feelings of those expressing such a need for pride. When you've likened those on the other side to douchenozzles and they come across as the students from the Cobra Kai dojo, it serves to demean their argument. I personally would think it unfair of me if I were to say that LGBT individuals were "moaning and whining" about straight pride, so I would discourage and avoid that kind of language.

I also notice the use of the word "selfish". It's an interesting word to use. To me, selfish implies an unwillingness to share. It could be said that being unwilling to share in the right for a pride day could itself be seen as selfish. Feeling that the attention should solely be on your own pride day, and not on another opposing pride day, could also be seen as selfish. Again, this kind of language should be avoided. It accomplishes little other than to emotionally discredit the opposing argument, and only establishes an us versus them mentality. This is a matter of trying to work together rather than to insult one another.

Just so I can make my own understanding of the comparison clear, minus the persecution: the practical advantage that a handicapped person received, and the demand for such practical advantages from certain able bodied individuals, is the same as the LGBT community having a pride day and certain heterosexuals requesting one for themselves. I don't know if this is a fair comparison, as there really isn't much in the way of a practical advantage that one can attain from a pride day. It's not the equivalent of someone making my life easier, such as pushing me in a wheelchair. There is no celebration of diversity through doing that. Instead, celebrating heterosexuality is an emotional matter.

What people aren't understanding is that black people and gay people aren't getting preferred attention or bonuses. The 'bonuses' they're getting comes with a FUCK ton of baggage.

And on top of that this is two weeks after 49 queer men and women were killed.

That is why people cringe at the concept. We have these things because we are literally being murdered for existing. Heterosexual people don't have to deal with that.

What happened in Orlando was a tragedy. My heart goes out to those who mourn their losses, and I know that as a heterosexual male, I can feel secure that I am not likely to face the same kind of threat specifically because of my gender.

However, and it pains me that I have to follow that previous paragraph with a however, I do not think that such suffering should invalidate the desire for a heterosexual pride day. If a group of heterosexuals wish to express pride in their sexuality, and congregate for celebration, then I do not see how such a gathering would prove to be threatening or demeaning to the LGBT community. I also don't see what kind of advantage that permits either.

Let met create an analogy. Gary and Barry have a wedding anniversary. For them, their wedding anniversary is incredibly important. Not only is it a celebration of the love they have for one another, but it is also representative of the struggles they've faced and overcome. Not only did they have to fight for their right to be married in the first place, but they also faced great opposition and social stigma because of their relationship.

On the flipside to this, we have Ted and Sue. They have a wedding anniversary of their own. Yet, Gary and Barry cringe at the idea of Ted and Sue celebrating their wedding anniversary. They don't think think Ted and Sue have earned the right to a celebration of their wedding anniversary because they haven't struggled in the same way that Gary and Barry have. In this instance, Gary and Barry are likening their own values of their day to that of another couple. However, for Ted and Sue, their wedding anniversary has nothing to do with Gary and Barry. It has everything to do with a celebration of themselves and the love they share for one another. Ted and Sue attain no advantage as a result of their celebration, other than an emotional one of having a day dedicated to something that is important to them.

We would love to not have to need or want parades and history months. But the Pulse incident proved we're a long way from not needing it.

I feel like I keep on having to make this point of not intending offence, but I don't think the word 'we' is appropriate. You, as an individual, are not representative of the LGBT or black community in its entirety. I believe if there was no persecution, there would still be a significant number of people in both communities who would desire parades or history months. If, magically, no such persecution existed as of tomorrow, would the parades and the history months be scrapped, and those who desired them regardless of persecution be disappointed?

Not to be flippant, but we do have shark week. It isn't a week dedicated to the suffering and slaughter of sharks, as far as I'm aware. It's just sharks. Yet the reason it exists is because there is a demand for it. Yet the demand for a shark week doesn't detract from a black history month. In the same way, is it possible that a white history month could avoid detracting from a black history month?

edit: i really need to remember that post merging isn't a thing

I think that the Fourth of July largely is, as it goes, a celebration of what makes us different and, by proxy, why we might prefer the United States over other countries. It doesn't mean we are threatening the others necessarily, but when you listen to the rhetoric that comes with celebrating being an American, it is always saying stuff America is like "A free country." and all that with the implication that this is a unique quality. And I do think it would be healthy if we toned down our rhetoric in general because I think nationalism leads to delusional thinking. Mind that I'm not saying the fourth should be banned, because when you strip away the rhetoric you still get a summer holiday where you blow shit up and eat barbecue with friends and family, and I'd have to be a sad fuck to poopoo those things. But if you look at patriotism and extend the same practices and assumptions to a pro-heterosexuality movement, you can see how it could get awkward.

I'm afraid I'm not as well informed or opinionated about the Fourth as you are, due to being European. What I can say is that, of course, the implication behind the US being a uniquely free country is nothing more than an implication, and I do agree that nationalism beyond moderation, much in the same way that excessive pride, such as white pride, in any quality, can be unhealthy.

I'm not sure I understand your last point about the assumptions and practices of patriotism being extended to pro-heterosexuality. Can you please expand upon this?

Which I guess comes down to what you want to do. If you don't want to draw lines, say "We make babies and you don't" or whatever, then what exactly does a Hetero-pride movement achieve? If you want to meet other heteros... well, that is easy. Hopefully nobody is shaming you for your heterosexuality, in which case you wouldn't need the solidarity part of it. Is it just that you want a parade? Because there are less controversial ways to get a parade. Or do you feel left out because people from other groups are posting X-Pride and you're checking in the majority boxes all the way? Because if that is true it would be a really interesting sociological thing (I feel left out of being left out.) I dunno how you could fix that. Another hobby I guess?

It fulfils an emotional desire. There's a demand for it, as evidenced by it being prominent enough to trend on Facebook and Twitter. Beyond that, I could ask, why does it need a purpose? What purpose is there to Groundhog day, a day where an oversized rodent inaccurately predicts the coming season based on whether it gazes at its own shadow or not? People celebrate stupid shit all the time.

@RocketmanThat's the thing it's not a normal emotional desire. It comes up every June.

What is June?

Gay Pride Month.

It's a direct response to the concept that other people are getting attention that is being perceived as 'special'. Rather than necessary, or perhaps even just a decent thing to do considering the very checkered history society has with the LGBTQ+ community.

You're being largely obtuse if you think it's somehow desirable to be in a position where having to have our own month and parades is even necessary in the first place.

I would absolutely love it if Gay Pride Month was unnecessary. I would love if we were at a point in the world, or hell were never at a point to begin with, that pride parades and chants and a whole culture of strength weren't necessary.

There is nothing that would make me happier than if I would walk through the world like a straight person.

I know what it's like. I remember what it's like when I was 13 and didn't realize the truth. I could even potentially keep that feeling of walking through the world like a heterosexual because unless I say something most people assume I'm heterosexual anyway.

But it's for that exact reason we need these things. In case you haven't noticed the concept of 'coming out' is such a painfully goddamn heterosexual thing because unless you say otherwise you might as well be heterosexual.

We have everything to be prideful about. Being out. Being alive. Surviving. Living. Not letting society drag us down. Creating an entire culture of our own within a world that wanted us to go the fuck away.

To be entirely frank, heterosexual people do not have anything to be prideful about. They don't have anything specifically successful as a community to say 'This is what we did.'

Because heterosexual people have never had to face adversity for the pure fact they are heterosexual. You guys have had the world handed to you on the silver platter, when it comes to sexual orientation.

I'm not sure I understand your last point about the assumptions and practices of patriotism being extended to pro-heterosexuality. Can you please expand upon this?

Well, the gist of what I mean is that patriotism creates a sense of the tribal "other" where we are in competition with those who do not belong to our group. You wouldn't want to foster the same feeling in heterosexuals toward non-hetero's.

It fulfils an emotional desire. There's a demand for it, as evidenced by it being prominent enough to trend on Facebook and Twitter. Beyond that, I could ask, why does it need a purpose? What purpose is there to Groundhog day, a day where an oversized rodent inaccurately predicts the coming season based on whether it gazes at its own shadow or not? People celebrate stupid shit all the time.

Does it though? I think @Rica alludes to basically how I see the the calls for heterosexual pride, in that i'm not convinced there is an actual real desire for days or months set aside for the celebration of it. All of the calls for such a thing always came off as peevishness to me, like people are saying it because they want to score points against the other team by pointing out "Well you get to celebrate and we don't." I can't imagine anybody actually desires a celebration to occur because I can't imagine what you could even do with it beside say "Good thing we ain't gay."

Groundhog day is a weird tradition. It just sort of... happened. We don't really have a tradition of times set aside for hetereosexual pride. I mean, I guess we could always renew Saturnalia, but that would be sexual pride in general. Christmas+Orgies would be pretty boss tho

@Vilageidiotx I mean people could celebrate "Thank God we aint gay." But that sort of proves the fact that we have Gay Pride Month for a reason and it's for that exact attitude that being non-heterosexual is subtly perceived as being lesser.

Even some people who are allies have subtle reactions that say this because it's been implied all our lives.

I don't think heterosexual people understand how rough that is. To have it silently agreed that you at worst a perverted monster, at best an inferior being. It messes with your head, man.

I see it in all my queer friends. Which is why when people first come out they tend to go for the extremes. The sudden rush of pride in yourself for being who you are creates a very uncompromising attitude because you never want to go back to pretending to be anything else.

Culture's a motherfucker. People can recognize one thing intellectually (that homosexuality is victimless and therefore a perfectly cool thing to do), but thousands of years of social practice will affect a person emotionally or at some root of them whether or not they want it. Culture is a train shooting 100mph across thousands of years, and even a single century can hardly be enough to stop it. I'm sure I have stupid knee-jerk assumptions or ideas about non-heterosexuality though I haven't ever consciously had a problem with it.

It's why I so freely discuss these things because if we keep silent the more likely we are to continue these weird little culture things. The status quo isn't quo. It doesn't work for everyone and it hurts people. Even if just subtly.

The more we break down these silly little things, the more everyone can live a happy fulfilling life because they're being taken care of not caused to silently suffer because no one wants to admit anything is wrong.

So I had a very long post responding to both of you, but unfortunately I hit the back button and now it's lost forever D:

It's kind of discouraged me from continuing the debate as I sunk quite a bit of time into it I'm afraid. All I will say is that someone from the LGTBQ+ community should not feel ashamed for their identity. At the same time, I do not think that a person who is heterosexual should be discouraged from expressing a similar kind of pride.

Also, Christmas orgies sounds dope, but I don't think I'd invite the family. Especially not my grandparents.

if you mean in general and not targeted pride like a holiday, you can show the former if you want. it's called bonin'

Kind of in a rut at the moment so bonin' ain't on the mind, but I was defending what I perceived to be the expression of pride by heterosexuals, whether it be in the form of a holiday or otherwise

It's not though. You're honestly misunderstanding the core reason behind the desire.

You're misunderstanding what gay pride is.

Gay Pride is literally brought about from the fact that we accomplished something purely by surviving. We SUCCEEDED in a world that tolerates us at best and wants us dead at worse. We came out stronger. Better. Uncompromising.

We have something to celebrate because we faced adversity not only all our lives but our entire history.

We as a community fought for our place in the world. We EARNED our pride. With blood. (Literally)

The reason heterosexual people don't have something to be proud of for being heterosexual (they probably have other reasons to be proud but not for their sexual orientation) is because they never had to fight for the right to exist. To live. To love.

You're thinking of pride as a general feel good feeling. I'm proud to be queer. But I'm also proud of my ability to write. My intelligence. My compassion.

Only one of those relates to gay pride. And that's the fact that I've lived, loved, and survived as a queer woman.

THAT is what gay pride is. That is why heterosexual pride is cringy. Because heterosexual people have never suffered for being heterosexual.

Be proud of who you are. Of your accomplishments.

Gay Pride is the pride of the accomplishment of living in a world that for a very long time wanted us dead.

THAT is what gay pride is. That is why heterosexual pride is cringy. Because heterosexual people have never suffered for being heterosexual.

Bologna. Hetero marriage has been around for thousands of years, a special brand of existential suffering.

Here's the disconnect. The people who torment the different are themselves a minority. The vast majority of us just don't care about your personal tastes in anything, because why would we? Then along comes a pride parade (pick any pride), and the apathetic masses are painted right into the opposition. Maybe we deserve it -- we sat idly by for 250 years while gay marriage was illegal in the US, that's wrong, that's on us, right? But (for the majority) it wasn't about hate or prejudice or anything malicious -- just pure apathy. Again, still wrong, fine -- but for a lot of hetero people, the first introduction to rights movements was "You're our enemy, and we're going to beat you." I understand how and why that came to be, and you're not entirely wrong -- but that shit puts people on the defensive.

The 'hetero pride,' the 'red pill,' the 'white history month' type shit -- sure, it's frivolous and dumb, but it's entirely understandable. Somebody is just (they think) innocently going about their business and perceive themselves suddenly treated like a villain, and the first response is "Hey, no I'm not, I'm just a person too." They're not entirely wrong either.

edit: reading over it, I realize I ought to note that yeah historically speaking it was another story altogether. Speaking about today's world, today's counter-pride stuff.