Here's a commentary I wrote a few days ago on Facebook in response to the Chick Fil A controversy.
Never heard of Chick Fil A two weeks ago. Would love to go back to that time. The fact that a Christian conservative billionaire who thinks selling chicken sandwiches is "the Lord's work" comes out against same sex marriage isn't surprising at all. A fair number of fast food corporations are run by known bigots. Tom Monaghan of Dominoes Pizza instantly comes to mind. It's not that special folks. F
urthermore, Cathy knows his main audience. The Bible Belt. In my opinion, he did a masterful job of tapping into the angst of Christians who believe that they are somehow being oppressed these days. All this attention is making millions for the company, and while it's nice to see other companies publicly stepping back from association with Chick Fil A, there's entirely too much of a mega distraction circus feel to all of this.
So, here's what I think. Why not use this as an opportunity to say to hell with fast food giants? The famous Chick Fil A chicken sandwich contains 16 grams of fat and 1300mg of sodium. Think of how many millions of factory farm chickens have suffered and died to provide sandwiches that contribute to heart disease and all sorts of other chronic, debilitating illnesses? This is the norm for fast food: factory farms and disease producing products. Furthermore, fast food chains are a product themselves of diminished communities, desperately overworked people, crass capitalism that has bankrupted the many at the expense of the few, and an education system that places more value on the ability to take standardized tests than teaching real life, health producing skills like cooking, gardening, and foraging.
There's a great need to expand debates like this. Because simply slamming and boycotting - which has gone on for years on a smaller scale with Chick Fil A - hasn't made much of a dent in their bottom line. And it's also a little too easy for all of this to slip into company X is great because they support gay rights, while company Y is evil because they don't. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Many of the same companies coming out in favor of gay rights these days (knowing that it will probably pad their bottom line, mind you), are also the same ones that basically own Wall Street, the White House, Congress, and our State legislatures. So, while I support any positive affirmation for GLBTQ rights, I think it's vitally important that the lens remain wide, and that folks keep their critical thinking skills fine tuned. End of rant.
At almost the same time, unbeknownst to me until later, fellow Zen blogger Algernon wrote a similar post on his Facebook page. Here's the last two paragraphs.
Opt out of fast food (except for emergency snacks) altogether. Explore (or re-discover) the creative and sexy joys of domestic cuisine. Cook and invite people over (without their iPay electronic devices) and have slow, sensible conversations over good food and wine about what makes a healthy community, what kind of friends are good to have in one's life, and maybe (as you feel comfortable with your company) get a little more direct about the issues that got you riled at the nasty fast food chain in the first place.
I'm not being cute here. I really think this is a more direct way of participating in the world and influencing it, even if only by a degree or two. This seems like a valid and important form of activism-and-community-building to me. (It might also change you some, if you are listening and not just persuading.) There is something about people who are quietly, fearlessly true to their hearts -- and a good dinner. They can be very memorable.
14 comments:
One might call the practice of big corporates supporting LGBTQ rights while ignoring worker's and other rights as "rainbow washing". I first ran into the term here Spark of Wisdom: Rainbow Washing on Womanist Musings.
Since one of Sparky's posts at Womanist Musings was referenced, here is another that seems pertinent.
It's too bad this is being framed (again) as company X not supporting LGBTQ rights-- or as a CEO's homophobic opinion-- versus money from company X funding organizations that strive to deny equality to LGBTQ people in all facets of life (not just marriage). Furthermore, while this particular company claims they don't discriminate against employees or customers, their money goes to causes that does materially harm their employees and customers.
I disagree that responding to this "controversy," the part that directly affects the lives of LGBTQ people, causes us to slide further down the slippery slope of "company X is great because they support gay rights, while company Y is evil because they don't."
There is a difference between "keeping the lens wide" and erasing the concerns of LGBTQ people. As one such person, I firmly believe that our efforts to seek equality must be inclusive and fully committed to all anti-oppression work. As part of that we absolutely must recognize our own privileges. So to that extent, I completely agree that "there's a great need to expand debates like this." But please let's be clear that this debate about LGBTQ rights is not a debate among equals.
Honestly, the argument posted here comes across to me as yet another message that LGBTQ people and their allies ought not take specific actions against the things that hurt LGBTQ people, for example, because there are "bigger" concerns, etc. etc, or because there are pro-LGBT organizations fail to address other kinds of inequality. It is possible to call out homophobic actions for what they are and also call out the other forms of structured inequality they uphold. It is possible to do this and call out the pro-LGBT organizations for their own discriminatory practices. I don't think the boycott is a bad way to do that, and I also believe there are other positive actions people can take.
But the last two paragraphs quoted from Algernon omit all mention of LGBTQ people. In combination with the previous statement "while I support any positive affirmation for GLBTQ rights," this comes across to me as a heterosexist re-framing of the problem which takes GLBTQ people out of the picture altogether. It has "expanded the debate" so far that LGBTQ people aren't even part of it anymore, except in the abstract. And I believe that is plainly heterosexist.
"Another message that LGBTQ people and their allies ought not to take specific actions against the things that hurt LGBTQ people."
What if that were put to me as a question instead of projected as "the truth" onto what I wrote? Then there could be dialogue.
Instead, we have the phrase "comes across to me" which is a yellow flag for "here's what I'm making out of this" and I'm being accused more or less of colonialism: the straight guy opening his mouth and leaving out LGBTQ people. Where there could easily be constructive dialogue we instead make conflict.
So I'll go through the possibly fruitless exercise of pointing out that nowhere in what I wrote did I suggest, or secretly think, that "LGBTQ people and their allies ought not to take specific actions against the things that hurt LGBTQ people" or that they shouldn't "call out homophobic actions for what they are" and call attention to "structured inequality."
Granted the full text of what I wrote was not posted (it was a bit long). But even going simply on this little excerpt, this adversarial approach -- no dialogue, just projection and accusation -- is not constructive, and since there is no dialogue the intellectual process is solipsistic.
"I'm being accused more or less of colonialism: the straight guy opening his mouth and leaving out LGBTQ people."
Algernon, I hear you. I'm sorry you feel that way.
I would like to respond to the blog entry posted here as is. I am not responding to the entry on your blog in these comments here. I honestly do read this particular post here as a message that LGBTQ people and their allies ought not take specific actions against the things that hurt them. I do read it as a heterosexist re-framing of the issue. I like the Dangerous Harvests blog, so I will take this opportunity to thank Nathan for his thoughtful posts (thank you!)
I do not think this particular post is a case where critical thinking skills are fine tuned, to borrow the phrase.
I can understand that it's difficult because this is being widely represented as one CEO's opinion or right to free speech, or yet another company that just doesn't recognize LGBTQ rights. There is a reason it's being represented this way.
This is why I read the message as LGBTQ ought not to take specific actions in this particular case-- I read the message as:
1) this is yet another anti-LGBTQ company
2) boycotting is not productive, because past boycotts have had no success
3) calling out the anti-LGBTQ actions makes it "a little all too easy to slip into company X is great because they support gay rights, while company Y is evil because they don't"
4) why not let's look at it a different way altogether (which happens not to mention the concerns of the LGBTQ people who are directly harmed)
I don't think boycotting is bad and still agree that we ought to look at it a different way. I think that should be a fully intersectional approach, rather than single issue. But I firmly believe that looking at it a different way needs to acknowledge the truth that this company funds organizations that actively seek to maintain inequality for LGBTQ people and harm them. I don't not believe that was represented in this post.
In my experience, and in the experience of many LGBTQ people I know, our efforts to raise awareness are frequently de-railed and re-framed to focus on issues that don't honor our concerns. As Sparky mentions in the post I linked. It is not just homophobic people who do this-- it is sometimes our straight allies and sometimes other LGBTQ people.
I believe that happened in this original post, so I'm calling it out.
"I don't not believe that was represented in this post"
Sorry, that should say "I don't believe that was represented in this post."
Gwyn,
First off, you don't know my sexual orientation, nor anything about my history of involvement in the GLBTQ struggle. I feel like you erased my identity and personal history by assuming who I am based upon a single blog post.
Secondly, some of your comment sounds like what is fairly common over at Womanist Musings. While there are some excellent commentaries over there, so often people - including some of the writers - are bashing each other over the head and instantly assuming the worst in each other. The highly combative nature of debate makes it difficult for nuances to come out, or much dialogue between those who disagree on certain points to happen. A hair breath difference from the popular view can lead to dog piling - Renee herself has been widely trashed more than a few times in ways that often felt to me like highly personal attacks, as opposed to a healthy deconstruction of the issues. She dishes out her share of vitriol as well, but my main point is that discussion where people actually listen and learn from each other isn't likely to happen when the environment gets hostile for nearly everyone present. I say this after a good year and a half of regularly reading posts and comments there.
Thirdly, you're own sentence was exactly what I was trying to get at here.
"As one such person, I firmly believe that our efforts to seek equality must be inclusive and fully committed to all anti-oppression work."
I am bringing up those other oppressions, including the ones impacting our planet, which we all depend upon for our lives. How can we write about, work with these interlocking issues? How do we build actual coalitions - as opposed to ones that reinforce the privileged? How do we avoid the divide and conquer tactics that have sunk in so deeply that they regularly derail LGBTQ and allied organizations and coalitions? How do we balance the needs of individual groups or even individuals persons, with the need to work together across some differences to achieve justice and systemic change?
I say "we" in these questions not because I think everyone is on an equal playing field, but because there is no way to justice without a we. People have to work together somehow.
I have been asking questions like this for years. Because of my own involvement in social and environmental justice work, and a desire to see a better, more just world for everyone.
Fourthly, when I mentioned the issue of boycotts, I was thinking of articles like this one.
http://www.queerty.com/debunked-gays-pro-choicers-should-feel-free-to-order-dominos-pizza-20120412/
I totally agree with you that the lack of focus on funding anti-gay organizations, as well as harmful or questionable company policies, is a major problem. And perhaps a boycott that focused on, and framed by, those specific issues will have a positive impact. I honestly don't know.
Finally, I wrote the original post on my Facebook page after seeing literally dozens of articles and images about Chick Fil A that mostly focused on the words of Cathy. It does not represent my full take on the situation. It was a reaction to both the limited focus I was seeing, and also the fact that, yes, there are a lot of other issues going on in the world. Many of which directly impact LGBTQ communities more negatively than Chick Fil A does. There's a danger that Chick Fil A becomes another Dominoes Pizza. A fast food chain some people boycott for awhile, and then forget about when the next bigoted billionaire says something oppressive.
The way I see it, when interlocking oppressions aren't discussed and centered in some fashion, it's too easy for the majority of people to keep hopping around trying to put out fires. I want to get at the systemic roots, which seems to only happen when enough people recognize their commonalities, and work together across differences.
Gwyn,
Just saw your current response. Thank you. I read a fair amount about the company's funding practices, and personnel policies. I agree that it would have been a better post with some mention and attention given to them. In fact, it was a detailed article about said practices that led me to write the post in the first place. Because it was one of the only pieces I had seen that went far beyond the "free speech" or "bigoted CEO" focus. In my mind, I wanted to add to that expansion.
Also, the comments were originally directed at the 300 people on my Facebook list. And so, it was an audience shift to put it here, as well as Algernon's comment, which was originally directed at his Facebook list.
"In my experience, and in the experience of many LGBTQ people I know, our efforts to raise awareness are frequently de-railed and re-framed to focus on issues that don't honor our concerns. As Sparky mentions in the post I linked. It is not just homophobic people who do this-- it is sometimes our straight allies and sometimes other LGBTQ people."
This kind of point has always been challenging to work with as a writer. Because there is a lot of erasure and derail that goes on. There is also the fact that the GLBTQ are very diverse, with diverse interests and concerns. I have written a few posts on different blogs about way in which marriage and the nuclear family get centralized at the expense of other ways of loving and being together. Questioning the gay marriage movement, for example, even while offering my full support for the right for any adult to marry another, led to a fair amount of shit-storm. Among other things, I was accused of not giving full credence to all the barriers gay folks who want to marry face. Which just re-centered the whole discussion on marriage again. And seemed to assume that all GLBTQ folk and allies should be focused solely on marriage rights.
There's always something left out and missed. Whatever a writer offers, it's always partial to some degree. I'm just saying that wading in to this territory is challenging, sometimes confusing, and risky. I wish more readers would recognize that - especially those who are also writers.
Gwyn,
Thank you for your additional response.
You make a very important point that "our efforts to raise awareness are frequently de-railed and re-framed to focus on issues that don't honor our concerns."
It is also important to notice those behaviors in ourselves, and this is actually a recurring theme in Nathan's blog, and this comes up in the zen process as well as other processes of awakening and interacting with a complex human field.
Do you acknowledge any possibility that you, yourself, could be re-framing or projecting other people's offerings, and thus de-railing friendship and alliances?
Your criticism of what I wrote doesn't teach me much because I feel unheard by you, and summarily dismissed. And I think you know what that feels like.
Hi, Algernon. I am sorry that my response to yours doesn't offer you much. I am not criticizing your post on your blog and have instead made an effort to point out what I see as problematic with the post on this blog, as a whole, which includes the two paragraphs from your post. I do not equate this post with yours on your blog.
I believe that the original post here leaves out crucial details. I am grateful to Nathan for considering that. I will try to respond in a way that I hope that will not leave you feeling unheard or dismissed. Regarding what I saw here on this blog, I believe this occurs as part of a larger discourse that silences LGBTQ voices, and I believe this is dangerous for us. I do not think this omission happened with the intent to contribute to that or to hurt LGBTQ people. I also don't believe the intent to hurt LGBTQ people or silence them is required to make a message heterosexist. As I explained, I also don't believe this is "owned" by straight people. I don't believe that this kind of message makes someone a heterosexist straight person (or even a straight person). I call it out here because I believe the message contributes to a culture that harms LGBTQ people and I believe this is not particularly about gay marriage, even though this is how it is widely represented. I do believe that our lives are at stake and I believe that was omitted. Finally, I believe the collective omission presents a real danger to LGBTQ people. I will listen if you are willing to explain the ways that this is derailing or re-framing other people's offerings.
Nathan I appreciate the opportunity to engage. I understand that it is risky, and I understand that it is hard to represent the issues in a single post. I understand that you have gotten painful flack for wading into these issues. I believe it's important to wade into them, nevertheless. LGBTQ people do not have a choice but to wade into them (except to deny who they are, which happens). I appreciate that you do.
"LGBTQ people do not have a choice but to wade into them (except to deny who they are, which happens). I appreciate that you do."
My statement here is unclear, I'm sorry. I am not "appreciating that you have a choice to wade these issues." I am appreciating that you take them on. I am grateful to the LGBTQ people who actively engage in this and I am grateful to our straight allies who do, people who have done this on my behalf.
" I don't believe that this kind of message makes someone a heterosexist straight person (or even a straight person). I call it out here because I believe the message contributes to a culture that harms LGBTQ people and I believe this is not particularly about gay marriage, even though this is how it is widely represented. I do believe that our lives are at stake and I believe that was omitted. Finally, I believe the collective omission presents a real danger to LGBTQ people. I will listen if you are willing to explain the ways that this is derailing or re-framing other people's offerings."
I'm struggle to respond to what you've written in a way that represents the full spectrum of what I'm thinking.
First off, everything I wrote about food, corporate culture, and the rest has been totally sidelined. I understand why that has happened and take responsibility for not presenting a more thorough argument before going to the "lens widening." I also accept that because some of the critical issues were missing, it can be read as dismissive of LGBTQ concerns. Furthermore, I'm clear about the threats queer folks face from the kind of culture created and promoted by both Chick Fil A itself, and the organizations it helps fund.
At the same time, I continue to feel like the diversity of the LGBTQ community often gets homogenized in discussions like this. That there's this pressure for everyone to line up, or be presented as unified on an issue like Chick Fil A. Perhaps out of a sense that such an appearance of unity will help address/resist the overall societal oppression. And yet, plenty of queer people aren't very concerned about Chick Fil A. Or see it as just another symbol of the heterosexist roots, and are focusing their energies elsewhere. Here in Minnesota, the Koch Bros. funded anti-gay marriage train has rolled in to try and pass a Constitutional Amendment again same sex marriage. That's what's foremost on the minds of many queer folks here in Minnesota right now. We only have two Chick Fil A restaurants here - one of them in our major airport. So, it's a little difficult to make the issue tangible beyond online-based activism. I'm saying this because while the generalized threat you feel is true for many of us here, the specific triggers aren't necessarily the same.
Even though I have written about the ways in which the gay marriage movement sometimes marginalizes those of us who question conventional looking marriage, or reject it outright, I am still involved in the effort to defeat the marriage amendment here. Because that is both the clearest public threat, but also the place of opportunity for changing the local narrative, laws, and culture.
If I were living in the Bible Belt, odds are my post would have been different, at least to some extent. The same desire to expand the lens would still be there, but participating in a boycott, for example, would have been more tangible.
One thing I might have done with this post, though, was to figure out a way to offer solidarity to those who see an opportunity with Chick Fil A. Seeing that in some states, going after their policies and funding might be the best opportunity for cultural change at this time.
But I continue to feel that the kind of silencing you validly bring up happens not only by the omissions present in my post, for example, but also by these presentations of LGBTQ concerns as a single, unified block. Trans folks often bring this kind of silencing up. As do bisexual folks. I was trying to speak about this kind of erasure with the gay marriage discussions I mentioned, but it wasn't that clearly written.
Finally, your point about the difficulty of representing these issues in a single post is one that I often come back to. Whatever the issues I am writing about. Blogging is challenging in that people rarely consider the body of one's work. The immediate post, or the most recent posts, are usually what's on anyone's mind. It's not read like a book, an essay, or anything where there's more space to lay out as many nuances as one can. Because I wrote these posts, my mind remembers the other times I focused on issues like organizations with anti-gay policies and funding, and their impact. But to the average reader, those posts from six months or a year ago are forgotten.
I offer this not to defend any mistakes or weaknesses in this post, or others I have written, but to point to the challenges of the medium itself.
Anyway, I do appreciate the pushing on this because it allowed me to consider all of this more thoroughly.
I'm a by-stander here, but was struck by this earlier comment posted by Algernon:
"What if that were put to me as a question instead of projected as "the truth" onto what I wrote? Then there could be dialogue."
... lots of opinions being expressed here, and re-framing/stating of original intent, but I feel like I'm still waiting for someone ask the question(s) that will unify the thread of this commentary so it feels like dialogue. Clearly there's support the community, but I don't see anyone weaving any fabric yet.
julz
Julz,
I did my best with this discussion. Although it really felt like my other points got lost in the discussion about heterosexism, I agree with Gwyn that without enough context, my original post can easily play into the hands of those who want to erase GLBTQ voices.
In my current DH post, I linked back to this one to offer support for a boycott of the restaurant because they can make a difference. Chick Fil A, though, has predictably been overshadowed by new news events, and probably forgotten by a hell of a lot of folks.
But it's true that quality question asking hasn't happened here. I don't know if Gwyn is still around, and others have probably moved on.
One thing I have learned about blogging is that it's difficult to right the train. If the comments go in an antagonistic direction, there's only a short window (a few days maybe) to shift the tone back to openness. Think it was missed this time. Even I felt defensive, and took a little while to see what was missing in my post.
Post a Comment