What if?

[pnggrad79]

My wife and I were lying in bed the other night watching television and we saw on A&E a commercial that began "What if..." and then the next screen, "All homosexuals went on strike...". And that was it. Then a few minutes later, it did it again only this time, it was the teaser before the commercial for the show with John Stamos in it where he plays this gay man who goes on strike for gay marriage rights when his brother or something gets married. As you can tell, after the initial "What if..." I was lost in that thought and didn't pay attention to the title of the movie.

What if we just all walked out? What if we all just left the country and went to a place where we could be who we are and not have to face daily discrimination and rejection? What if we did 381 days of a strike (like the Montgomery boycott in 1955)? Would they listen? Would it make any impact at all? Just a thought....

[dewdrop_world]

It's an ad for this:

http://www.aetv.com/weddingwars/index.jsp

James

[scott snedeker]

Powerful thought!

Scotty

[Emproph]

Joe proposed something similar a while back in another thread.

That lead me to wonder what if we did that, globally for one day. What if every gay person and every gay supporter in every country, just stayed home for a day. Don't buy anything, don't go to work, just stay home and read a book. WHat would happen?

We talked about some of the challenges and I love the idea, I just don't know how it could be made practical.

[andrewlittle]

Pick a day that is several months out. Better yet, pick a week.

Network with as many people on this site as you possibly can and try to get them to network on as many pro-GLBT sites as possible.

Keep in mind that the first attempt may be small, but then use it to establish another date, again out a few months. Have all those people commit to networking again - set up a central website for this purpose.

Keep in mind:
If you prepare for this day by buying what you want before or after the date, you undermine the effort. Commit to doing without. (Other than food, water, etc.) Stay home so you don't use gas - read, so you don't create a "captive market" for advertisers on TV. Be a non-participant in culture.

Don't take a vacation day that you schedule ahead of time. That plays in to the system. Use a sick day by calling in - if you have the right to personal days, better yet, take it - if you have neither, you obviously have to weight the risk against the hoped-for outcome. If it's a sick-out (used to be pretty common in the olden days), it prevents preparatory measures by companies.

If you personally know one other person who does this with you, and ten other people who say they know of someone who did this, count it as a success. The next one will be bigger. BTW - if someone who didn't even know about the plan calls in sick that day, guess who they're inadvertently supporting?

And remember, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead.

By the way, keep me informed. If I am working by then, I will call in too. If I'm not, my participation may seen kind of invisible. Oh, well.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by pnggrad79

What if we just all walked out? What if we all just left the country and went to a place where we could be who we are and not have to face daily discrimination and rejection? What if we did 381 days of a strike (like the Montgomery boycott in 1955)? Would they listen? Would it make any impact at all? Just a thought....

It would backfire. Look at the Kinsey numbers. 3% of adults are exclusively homosexual, and another 6% have had significant involvement with homosexuality but no longer do. I happen to think that the virulently anti-gay population comes largely from that 6%, many of whom I suspect are heavily conflicted about their same-sex attractions, past or present.

Now, herding gay people is like herding cats, so if you got one-tenth of the exclusively gay population to participate in this strike you'd be ahead of the game. Meaning 0.3% of the adult population. At current labor force participation rates, you're talking about 350,000 people going on strike. Out of a workforce of about 110 million. There would be no noticeable impact.

Meantime, the anti-gay contingent derived from that 6%, i.e., nearly 7 million workers, would be vocally laughing at the strike, and their derision would be amplified by the right-wing TV networks. So, might I suggest going back to the drawing board? Sorry to be the reality guy here, but someone might as well be.

[Zerbie]

I don't like saying this, but I think Willy's probably right, here.

Homophobia is nearly monolithic in many segments of our society and the LGBT numbers are small to begin with - factor in how many LGBTs will be unable/unwilling to participate. Considering how many people like to put blinders on ALREADY to the fact that gay folk are around, or on some level play into a vast social version of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it's probably futile.

Wanna make an impact? Figure a way to get all the straight allies fired up and participating alongside. Plan something that involves the WHOLE community, all the LGBTs able and willing, all the PFLAG moms and dads, brothers, sisters, supportive straight clergy, co-workers, friends. If every LGBT person participating brings two supportive straight friends or family aboard, that more than doubles the numbers right there.

[andrewlittle]

Consider:

Luke 10: 30-37 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds ... Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

The assumption is always the the priest and the levite lacked compassion - that they didn't care about the victim - but that the despised Samaritan had mercy. The Samaritan is, for good reason, understood to represent all manner of oppressed and rejected people. The story held up the callousness and distance of the religious heirarchy, and sang the virtues of the outcast as acting in accordance with the will of God.

Take another look, however. All Jews, whether hometown favorite Israelites like the priest and levite or foreign religious half-breeds like the Samaritans, were oppressed peoples - they lived under the hegemony of Roman rule. They were all strangers in their own homelands, subservient to the whims, rules and bias of the ruling powers. LGBT folks could understand that, I think.

The story doesn't tell us why the priest and levite passed by - we are left to surmise that. Popularly, it has been assumed that they were indifferent to the suffering. But just what if they passed by because they were afraid of backlash?

What if they realized they had a great deal in common with the mugged travelor. (BTW, if he was travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho without a convoy to protect him, you bet your butt he was Jewish or Samaritan. He was, himself, one of the oppressed.) There, lying in the ditch, was someone just about like they - it could even had been them if they'd just come by a little earlier. But, if they were to stop and help this person, wouldn't they draw attention to themselves. Perhaps they would stand out - maybe even become targets. They could be victims of backlash.

The Samaritan, for whatever reason, didn't seem to care that he might loose his anonimity - he may have cared that there was a backlash, but he didn't let that stop him. He was just interested, perhaps, in doing what need to be done - in doing what was right. If the priest and the levite were still there, would they say to him, "It could backfire. Might we suggest going back to the drawing board? Sorry to be the reality guys here, but you could draw attention to us all. You could cause backlash."

Playing it safe - or risking backlash because we become visible and vocal - is a personal choice. But when someone advocates that other people play it safe, isn't that taking personal fear a little too far?

[Zerbie]

Andrew, imo the analogy doesn't apply so well in this case. When talking about what is essentially an activist strategy, we want to plan something that will be effective and have an impact. Odds are, with small numbers participating, we won't have the impact hoped for. I think this idea is one where numbers are going to mean everything.

Perhaps the idea itself can work if, as I suggested in my post above, we motivate the larger community by actively involving straight allies.

[andrewlittle]

Zerbie said:

Perhaps the idea itself can work if, as I suggested in my post above, we motivate the larger community by actively involving straight allies.

I wasn't aware that anything said in this thread was aimed at not including allies. When I suggested networking with pro-LGBT sites, I did not mean to imply just networking with LGBT people.

That is exactly why I'm here. I am an ally.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Zerbie said:


I wasn't aware that anything said in this thread was aimed at not including allies. When I suggested networking with pro-LGBT sites, I did not mean to imply just networking with LGBT people.

That is exactly why I'm here. I am an ally.

Right. Thank you.

My thoughts may be cloudy because of vague memories of an earlier thread with a similar topic, but yeah, I did hear it as "What if all us gay people don't show up one day?"

If this is a whole community endeavor, I think we've got potential here. Thanks Andrew!

[andrewlittle]

Zerbie, I've read too many of your posts to think that you would back out on a good tussle because it might be messy. Let's here it for community endeavors and a damn good community in which to plot mayhem - oops, excuse me - I meant civil disobedience.

May God's love be continue to be abundant in your life,
Andy