Just another white man: privilege and queer erasure

[Soph0571]

I would never normally post something that originates on Reddit, however there is always an exception to every rule and this article on homophobia and Mayor Pete is an outstanding read. Just a taste...

What is so incredibly frustrating to me in the recent coverage of Buttigieg, is that so-called allies and liberals are taking the horseshit, inherently conservative approach in their criticisms by ignoring intersectionality. The entire point of intersectionality is that you cannot lop off and look at facets of a person’s identity discretely. Buttigieg is always gay. He was born gay, wakes up gay, eats gay, goes to sleep gay, breathes gay, and walks around gay. GAAAAAAAAAAY.

And yes, he is also always white and always a dude. There is no question that he is privileged - provided unearned societal benefits due to membership in certain categories - in those (and other facets) of his identity.

But by focusing almost exclusively on his race and sex, critics are erasing his status as a gay person to highlight his privileges as a white man. This is heterosexist, queer erasure.

---------

To reduce Buttigieg to “just another white man” reduces all his talents. But it also deprives the LGBTQ community and others of a chance to celebrate queer greatness. Not that all (or any!) LGBTQ people need to support him. Not that he is great solely because he is gay. But rather that gay people can also be talented, and smart, and extraordinary. That they can be lauded by presidents as leaders. That they don’t have to hide in the closet. That they can be seen as their full and total selves and be taken seriously for their ideas and what they bring to the table. In other words, that queer people can be great.

[link:https://www.reddit.com/r/Pete_Buttigieg/comments/bkofav/just_another_white_man_privilege_and_queer_erasure/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x|

Much more at the link

[oldsoftie]

1. This ridiculous obsession with slamming anyone because they're born white is going to backfire.

[Soph0571]

2. You didn't read the article then?

Because that was not what the article was about... at all

[oldsoftie]

6. Yes, even though Reddit can be a strain into the weeds sometimes

I see what the writer is saying; especially about "what about children?" Its like asking a female candidate about how long it takes them to get ready in the morning; would a aguy ever get that question?
Its just that it delves so far into the victimization of everyone.
And i would say for DAMN sure that Buttigeig is going to be the MOST over-analyzed candidate out there. By far!! And unfairly so.

[pdsimdars]

11. I agree with you there. . . that's what I thought at first until I got farther in the article

and realized he was applauding his gayness and not trying to tear him down because of his whiteness. It is a bit like walking through tangled weeds to get to that sunny little clearing.

[metroins]

3. I agree with you. Nt

[Hortensis]

4. Believe it overstates and that for the electorate the

overall effect is more balancing than erasing one part of him. No one is going to forget he's gay, the more so because he won't let them. He's is, after all, trying, reasonably enough, to use his experiences as a white gay male to underline his commonality with others discriminated against.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Queer erasure is definitely a thing. OTOH, would Buttigieg define himself as "queer"?

As a GenXer, I see him as such a throwback, the kind of oppressed person who can be held up as a credit to their identity, a "good gay guy" who is "just like the rest of us" with his white-male-ness and spouse and picket fence. He's not, you know, GAY gay. I know there's a lot of debate about this in the queer community, how his candidacy can be an important moment while he can also be critiqued as not the most radical of wall-breakers, and how we can all expect him to do better when it comes to the white male privilege he certainly has.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Is the word "queer" a thing these days?

It used to be considered derogatory. It still has that ring to it, to my ears. Is it a thing, now?

The whole point of not discriminating against someone is for whatever his/her category that was discriminated against....for that to be a non-issue. Like the color of one's hair, or one's height or race. It's part of a description, when giving a full description. Maybe. But nothing more than that.

If he's used as a standard bearer for discrimination, that will hurt his chances, I think. Obama was biracial. But he didn't run on that. That's what was unique about him. He had all these other qualifications, was a whole person, and had the right stuff. His race didn't enter into it. That's what non-discrimination looks like, IMO.

Some racists tried to make the case that he ONLY won because blacks voted him in because of his race. That didn't get far, because it wasn't true. People of all races who typically vote Democratic, voted for him. All the demographic groups who normally vote for Democrats, voted for him. He was light on white votes, but Democrats are increasingly light on white votes. There were criticisms he wasn't "black enough." In the end, he had the right stuff to be President and was an excellent President. His race was part of who he was (and is), but he didn't win because of it, IMO.

I view Pete the same way. I don't view him as not gay enough, too gay, whatever. Being gay is just part of who he is. Isn't that a good thing, if people view him that way? As for him being married to a man, I like that he's married. I think it's probably helpful to have a good partner in life, when tackling what must be a very stressful, hard job. Not necessary, but helpful. They seem to be a loving, devoted couple. I like that.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. The word has been reclaimed. But as with any word with a complicated history,

context definitely has a lot to do with it.

[genxlib]

8. I agree with you to a point

Full disclosure; I am a straight white male so any opinion I have is subject to my own lens.

I like the total package and he is on my short list for candidates to support. It is about the total person including his sexuality.

Having said that, the phenomenon that you reference will be crucial to him if he is to have any success as a national candidate. The way I see it, there are 40% of the people willing to accept him as is and 40% of the people who will never accept him. His ability to win a national election will hinge on the remaining 20%.

Within that group, I believe there to be a lot of soft bigotry. People who are OK with generic LGBT rights but might stop short of putting one in the White House. They tell themselves they are modern thinking but manage to find reasons to vote another direction. We saw it in 2016 when people said they would vote for a woman but then were all too willing to believe bullshit about her.

It is a sad statement but to win over those 'tweeners, a candidate has to rise above and be so impressive as to be the exception to the rule. I call it the Halle Berry effect because I so often heard qualifiers when she was described..."she is really beautiful for a black woman". It is, of course, insulting and degrading to put it that way but therein lies the challenge of getting people outside of their comfort zone. I fully believe that Obama was successful because he got a lot of support from people who thought..."you know he is pretty smart and poised for a black guy"

Ultimately, Mayor Pete will need to capture some of those people who are willing to compartmentalize and see him as "OK for a gay guy".

It isn't right or fair. But it is where we are. In the future, I think we will be past it but I don't think we are there yet.

[NYMinute]

10. Obama had male privilege

and he never touted his blackness. He never brought up racism during his campaign or blame anything on race.

It did not "erase" his blackness.

Candidates put forth narratives that accentuate their strengths and not their weaknesses.

Emphasizing on being gay doesn't give Mayor Pete any advantage but his accomplishments as a veteran, a Rhodes scholar, Harvard graduate do.

That is not an erasure of his sexual preference -- to say that is silly. He is not hiding it and that is plenty of pride.

[pnwmom]

12. I don't think this is queer erasure. It's a sign of progress that his being gay isn't the subject

of every article about him.

All my gay father would have wanted, or his partner wants now, is the same opportunity every other person has. For their talents to be the focus, not their sexuality.

[MineralMan]

13. Being gay does give Mayor Pete a somewhat different set of experiences

in this society. In that regard, I think it's a plus for him in some ways. For me, it's not really any sort of issue at all, though. I'm more interested in his ideas about more universal issues facing us. I don't see his sexual orientation as being either a plus or a negative factor. It's really irrelevant to the contest, although there is that different perspective on some things.

[msongs]

14. something all races/ethnicities can agree on, its ok to bash the lgbt people nt