not waiting for the die-off

[rm]

The other day Frank Rich wrote a welcome op-ed in the New York Times that looked at how the resistance to marriage equality is both ludicrous and not likely to be significant enough to continue to control U.S. laws in another decade or so.

This piece, like many other essays, speeches, LJ posts and the like references the idea that younger people support marriage equality and, well, older people who don't will die off soon. Generational chance. Patience and we win.

I hate it. And not out of some spiritual enlightenment that thinks "waiting for the die-off" is both creepy and perhaps even morally suspect, although, I could certainly make those arguments with sincerity.

I'm also not pissed off about being asked to have patience. I don't have it, but I don't have it when I cook dinner either, so it's really neither here nor there.

No, I'm pissed off that minds will not be changed. That marriage equality will not be achieved through people admitting they were wrong, but through people just ceasing to be.

Yes, it's with a petty sense of vengeance that I loathe the die-off theory. I want bigots to change their minds. I want them to be ashamed.

It's pointless. And it's vicious.

But can you blame me, for also wanting to be vindicated?

But really, I should get over it.

And people should stop being creepy and talking about the damn die-off theory. It's not giving anyone the moral high ground.

Comments

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

Word.

"Waiting for the die-off" is an empty victory. You get what you wanted, but no minds were changed, no paradigms shifted.

Change is effected, but only in the natural flow of time. There's nothing satisfying about it.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Do people necessarily admit they're wrong when they change their minds? My impression is pretending the past never happened is much more common.

Maybe it's that mostly people don't change their minds-- they go along with social pressure, so it's more like their minds getting changed for them.

I agree that there's a creepy aspect to just waiting for the die-off.

[sykii.livejournal.com]

My gut feeling is in agreement with this. It's creepy, and it's the easy way.
But it also makes me think of this article. I'm not saying that all civil rights struggles are the same-- I don't think we need that to be legitimate, and I think that it's simplistic and potentially disrespectful-- however, I read this a few weeks ago and am still thinking about it.
And what it says to me is that people don't change, at least not late in life, enough for it to work the way that you and I both wish it would. The man in this article may or may not be sincerely sorry about the violence of his past, and may or may not have really changed his views. But at the end, it mentions that his favorite show is now Nancy Grace. The article lets this pass without comment, but I think it's in there as an indictment-- he's renounced one form of fear-mongering and scapegoating, but eagerly embraced another flavor.
Anyway, feel free to baleet if you don't want your thread wandering off in this direction.

[frakkin-addict.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I think waiting for the "die-off" also results in a lack of effort to actively attempt to change people's minds.

At 55 years old my mother went from believing that all forms of homosexuality was a sin, to making it her life's mission to raise awareness of GLBTQ issues and fight discrimination. I'm glad I never gave up hoping that she could change.

I think everyone carries the potential to change, and we shouldn't give up on them. Sadly so many are adamantly unwilling to do so, choosing instead to cling to their fears, misconceptions and hatreds. It's sad.

[eac.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I think it's pointless and vicious to deny a minority group equal rights because, essentially, one doesn't like them. I can't blame you at all.

I don't think a lot of those minds will change (just as many of them didn't about segregation), but I'd like them to be broadly recognized as wrong and to have to go around in their lives knowing that everyone thinks they're bigots.

I suppose that's not very mature, either.

[dulcinbradbury.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry but I disagree.

Progress is not the natural flow of time. I can site examples in medieval Europe where women slid in and out of degrees of empowerment as cultures changed.

Yes, it's a shame that many of our grandparents will never embrace gay marriage. But it's because many of them were willing to say "Yes, Uncle Joe & his "friend" are okay people but we don't talk about their relationship." that their kids were able to make the leap to "Uncle Joe and John should be able to be openly gay" to lead to *their* kids being willing to say "Uncle Joe & Uncle John should be able to get married."

Many of us (who are heterosexual by default) wouldn't have the views we have if our parents and grandparents hadn't made the effort to be accepting in relation to what was acceptable in their era.

[santousha.livejournal.com]

"Maybe it's that mostly people don't change their minds-- they go along with social pressure, so it's more like their minds getting changed for them." from nancylebov

This is so very true. I believe it's the same way with feminism and racism. There are still those who just go along with social pressure, but are still anti-feminism and very racist in nature.

What I hate about this statement is that it assumes that homophobia is an antiquated stance. It isn't, it really is not. There are enough teens, and younger who have been fed hate through the media, friends and family that this "phobia" can and probably will persist beyond the death of a generation.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

And then, there actually are genuinely liberal people who were born between 1920 and 1940. Hearing my parents' generation referred to as if they were all a bunch of neanderthals who will improve the world by leaving it is quite deeply offensive.

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

I have what may be an unpopular point of view on this - but I believe patience is necessary - because the fact of the matter is that it takes a long assed time to change this shit.

My parents - black and white - were married in 1968, a year after most miscegenation laws were repealed.

I was married to my first husband, a white man, in 1999. In 2000 we were in Alabama. I found out later, that in Alabama, the miscegenation laws there were repealed AFTER our visit. Which meant that during our visit, had we been in an accident, if we had relocated, etc - that no one would have had to recognize our marriage as a legal one.

And I would have been classed a bastard.

It took die-off to get that fucking law repealed. And no apology issued either.

I think it will come to a combination of progressive pushing forward (as we are seeing with the domino effect of states pushing forward to OK gay marriage in their states), and die-off.

And patience. And fight.

Patience doesn't mean that you can't push. But it does mean that you have to understand that everyone won't bend. That's just how it is.

For myself, I'm 110% in support of gay marriage because I am ACUTELY aware that there STILL EXIST people who would like to see me and my husband's marriage dissolved because we do not share a race (http://gawker.com/5211588/five-arguments-against-interracial-dating-from-missouri-rednecks). At least with die-off, they don't have the controlling vote anymore.

N.

[santousha.livejournal.com]

Mature or not, I'm with you on this.

Can't blame you.

[the-ogre.livejournal.com]

Given that i feel the same way.

[ladyaelfwynn.livejournal.com]

I don't like the "die-off" theory but some days, it's the only thing that keeps me a little bit sane.

As much as I want people to realize what huge bigots they've been and have a complete turn around and spend the rest of their lives attoning for their sins against their fellow humans by working to help the people they degraded for decades, I'm also old and jaded enough to know the odds of that happening are slim. I know, from first hand observation, that people are far more likely to just shut up about certain topics unless they are in a certain group of people they think will let them voice those opinions without getting on their cases.

We shouldn't stop trying to educate people and hope they change because some do. But some days, when some old white person is being particularly obnoxious I can't help but want to look up their birthdate and hope they're old enough to keel over any moment.

It's bitchy but I'm only human.

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

That is largely, but by no means entirely, what happened with Segregation. But it's not a case of waiting for all reactionaries to die off, but for their position to become the minority position.

That's the situation we have in Canada. Two Federal elections ago, 70& of the people who opposed sex-sex marriage didn't believe that the law should be changed back.Because you can't do that to people. That would be crazy. And the people who persist in opposing it are learning to keep that opinion to themselves. No doubt some of them are ashamed.

(Not my mother. She's a separate-but-equal-ist. She also thinks MASH is still on the air, until I remind her. Again.)

Figures I've seen for The U.S. suggest pro Equality will be the majority opinion by 2010, so it's reasonable to suppose that in ten years, some people will be publicly repentant. Some of these will be perfectly sincere.

[luke-jaywalker.livejournal.com]

I don't consider that theory accurate anyhow. The majority of the people who opposed racial equality in the `60s - perhaps not the high-level politicians, aged in their 50s and 60s, but certainly the voter base who kept them in office - are still alive now. But nobody considers institutional "blacks are an inferior species" racism to be reasonable or appropriate these days.

[rm.livejournal.com]

And for that matter, gay people born in that era!

This goes along with "people really did have pre-marital sex before the pill."

ah, historical fandoms!

[cantkeepsilent.livejournal.com]

I think that there are two things happening. The larger is that hearts are being changed. 538 suggests that marriage parity acceptance is growing at 2% per year, and that's got to be faster than people are dying. It's people realizing that they have gay friends, neighbors, and co-workers, and I think that the desire to be fair to real people is woven into the American fabric once you can convince them that They are really Us. I don't know if they're ashamed, but to be honest if someone is showing up for a party that started thirty years ago I'd still rather give them a drink than a lecture. But that's me.

The other side is that I want politicians to be acutely aware that society is going to be dramatically different in fifteen years. Not only are gay rights going to be codified, but the leaders who fought against the last few battles are going to go down in history alongside George Wallace. If you want to be a leader in the future, you'd better notice which way the crowd is headed. Maybe the die-off metaphor still doesn't encompass the totality and speed of the revolution, but whatever makes conservative leaders recognize the futility of their resistance is good with me.

[smirnoffmule.livejournal.com]

This. I agree that waiting for the die-off is an unsatisfying pay off, but I also think it basically isn't going to work; it's a fallacy that young people = liberal, old people = bigot. Our generation didn't invent equality or sexuality. We're where we are today because of the people who came before.

[sethg]

I think the concept of the Overton Window is relevant here. Very few people are likely to be converted all the way from "gay people are evil and sick" to "there's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay". But if enough people convert from "homosexuality is gross and the law ought to delegitimize it" to "homosexuality is gross but what they do is their own business", then the "gay people are evil and sick" crowd loses a whole swath of allies.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I'm not just talking about people who accommodate to social pressure but keep their old mental habits-- I'm talking about people having overall different reactions.

Approximate quote: You can't argue people out of what they weren't argued into.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

"And for that matter, gay people born in that era!"

Good point! Reminds me of the story I read about black gay activists being insulted by some whites because it was the fault of "you people" that Prop. 8 passed!

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

"Patience" is a vague concept. I think accepting that a process will take a long time (I'm shocked at how long it's taken for opposition to the war to drugs to get *any* traction) isn't the same thing as giving up pushing for a change to happen.

[rm.livejournal.com]

homosexuality is gross but what they do is their own business"

I hear what you are saying. And I agree with you. But the statement above has been long, long used to argue that gay people shouldn't even hold hands with their partners in public and should be beaten if they do.

So that particular mind change, not enough.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

Statistically speaking, it appears that there really is a greater tendency for younger people to be liberal and for older people to be conservative. But, wishing ill upon a whole group because of the views of some non-overwhelming majority of its members is ugly and dismissive of the diversity within the group. Even if one accepts schadenfreude towards individuals with certain beliefs as legitimate, to wish ill upon the whole group is to insult and alienate many individuals who would actually be allies. Not the least of the problem is, as you have indicated, that some of those older people are not just in general agreement with LGBT rights, but even founders of the movement.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

I have a different problem with the 'die-off' theory - it doesn't work. I see documentaries of kids in 'Jesus camps', and pictures and videos of the Westboro Baptist Church with kids as young as five singing about God's hate, and I get terrified. These memes are passed on and particularly when there's a religious element behind it, they will continue to be passed on. The current Pope's a lunatic, which isn't going to help matters one little bit.

And of course, there's the reaction a fair few Californians had when the right to same-sex marriage was repealed, which as I recall it was, "We voted, it's decided, shut up". A lot of people who would be fine with gay rights really don't care either way as long as there isn't any fuss. The majority of people don't like fuss and go out of their way to avoid it; if they didn't, would shit like the Patriot Act have passed? Or, more to the point, would people still be so damn quiet about the torture memos now that they've been published? Enough people don't care how it's decided one way or another so long as everyone just shuts up and lets them go back to watching TV in peace, and the lunatic individuals that I don't really care to call Christians whatever they say they are tend to be a lot louder than the liberals who seek equality. So they side with the noisy ones because they hope the noisy ones shut up. And the noisy ones will always be there.

So the real enemy is apathy. But then, hasn't that always been the case?

[sethg]

I agree with that, too.