I understand your point. However, logically we should listen to the views of the oppressed individuals, rather than to the perpetrators and oppressors.
I agree, they had to do it themselves, to find out, when they could've listened in fact. But let's face it, people usually don't listen. If they expressed their opinions, because "they realised we were speaking the truth", would people care? And this, even though I'd prefer people to listen directly to us, does in fact raise awareness. Sure, they should listen directly, but people don't do that. So I honestly do think that this is a step in the right direction.
I understand your points, however with these things there it always the point where we require those with the power (the oppressor) to act on our behalf. As a minority we can influence, but we do not necessarily have the means to act. A male government ultimately had to grant women the right to vote. White men ultimately had to grant black people freedom from slavery, equal voting rights etc A government of mostly straight people ultimately had to decriminalize male homosexuality The fact is if we could do this on our own, and had that much control over our autonomy we would not be an oppressed group in the first place! As much as people may disagree we as gay people (being a small minority group) require straight people to accept us or at the very least agree to tolerate us. My point here is if straight allies are so necessary to bring the end goals of equality (its unavoidable that we need their help eventually), why should we be concerned of them helping us out along the way?
I am going to have to side with a few of the members who pointed out flaws in this. It is not that the concept is negative or sets society back in terms of equality or acceptance; it simply doesn't display the brutal truth of the topic of prejudice against LGBTQ individuals. Ultimately, this was clearly done as a social experiment and with experimentation always follows critique and revision. It is not slander to be critical and point out the ways that this could have all been better and more beneficial; it is only constructive. Aussie highlight a valid point here. There is actually a psychological concept about this that I cannot think of for the life of me, but the theory states that the bulk of society is more likely to empathize and place higher value on the opinions and experiences of those of which they are culturally or genetically similar. For example, the infamous phrase about sexual violence: "How would you feel if it were your daughter?" This thought process is extremely problematic because the insinuation is that in order to feel deeply disturbed by an act of sexual violence against a woman we have to be closely tied to them; the fact that it is a horrific crime is not enough. Recording same-sex partners walking down the street and highlighting the troubles that they face should be enough to raise awareness in itself. The need for a heterosexual person to go undercover as a homosexual, or a white individual as a person of color in Pret's post, in order for a greater sense of empathy to be created is something that we want to discourage rather than encourage. ---------- Post added 23rd Jan 2015 at 01:53 PM ---------- Though I don't believe that Pret is insinuating that the efforts of allies are unnecessary. The novel Black Like Me absolutely influenced the minds of many whites during the time of its publication. It is not that Griffon's work was ineffective; rather it is simply that the fact that Griffon's voice and experiences were necessary in order to sway the minds of some who held prejudice that is negative is something that we as a society need to reflect on. Ultimately, this is still a sign of social bias, which is something that we as a people are going to need to overcome in order for true equality to be seen. It doesn't mean that those who benefit from social bias are worthless to the cause or shouldn't make the best of their opportunities or platform to encourage change. It only means that it is something that we need to be aware of. Although the concentration of my studies is not within social welfare, when the subject of poverty rolls around my voice is automatically considered more respectable as a college educated individual, despite never having lived in poverty. I can still have positive influence, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to acknowledge the fact that my ability to have a greater influence than someone who is suffering in poverty on the subject of poverty isn't something that we should be proud of.
Gen: I don't think that analogy completely applies... The problem with the, "What if it was your daughter" is that they don't want to think about a problem that does not apply to them. These 2 guys simply were not aware of the problems of gay people, but not because they wanted to ignore it. They actually went out of their way to experience a taste of it. To learn. At least a little bit. And as for the people who choose to listen to them. They aren't listening just because the problem is closer to home. It is not like heterosexuals are now becoming oppressed. It is just raising awareness to the people who don't know. And most of the people who don't know, would be people with no connections to openly gay people. I completely agree that the fact this was needed is not good. But it is because we are oppressed that we need people like this to help. You said in your post that "It doesn't mean that those who benefit from social bias are worthless to the cause or shouldn't make the best of their opportunities or platform to encourage change". What exactly do you mean by this, if you think what these 2 guys did was wrong?
Quiet Raven: The struggles of gender and sexual minorities is no secret at this point in history. Technology has made it all to easy to be exposed and become aware of the various social groups who are struggling within society today. LGBTQ individuals are scrutinized and assaulted every single day. There are rarely articles written. They are rarely news reports. It is not because it is something that even the heterosexual bulk of society are ignorant of; it is simply that those stories do not receive the recognition and action from the general public that they deserve. I feel that there is some misunderstanding here. There is nothing that they have done wrong. The desire to attempt to walk in the shoes of those who experience more adversity than the members of your social group isn't negative at all. What I am pointing out is that the fact that two heterosexual men holding hands and walking down the street should not theoretically be anymore worthy of media coverage and calling attention the struggles of LGBTQ anymore than the accounts of actual LGBTQ. If we haven't seen it with our own eyes, we've seen it in the media. We know about the harassment. We know about the staggering statistics. We know that the prejudice, hate, and violence is alive and well. Videos such as this are considered more moving and impactful because the heterosexual section of society will empathize with these men more because they identify with them more. This is problematic because, without these men, the voices of minorities are considered far less noteworthy. Which is why I say, it is not that events such as this cannot have positive impacts. It is simply the fact that it takes stunts such as this performed by members of a dominant group in order to empathize with the oppressed enough to pay attention that is not something to applaud.
Yeah, I think I see what you mean, I sort of agree. Still, I do look at this story as an overal positive thing and a step forward. Yes, it is sad that this is needed for the subject to gain coverage. However, if this sort of thing helps raise awareness, and causes more people to fight for gay rights, then that is still a very good thing.
Its sad yes, but I think its inevitable that when you have something that happens day-in, day-out to the extent of becoming a mundane occurrence you need some change in the variables to make it noticeable. In this case, that change in the variables is the men involved being straight media personalities. Again as sad as it is people do dehumanise gay people, and sometimes it does require a different tactic of getting people to think "that is unacceptable happening to people like me, so I guess it is unacceptable happening to people like them". Its a shame its necessary yes, but its brilliant if it gets people talking about the issue and beginning to see gay people as ordinary human beings. I guess in a way you could look at the Rosa Parks case in a similar way. The arrest of Claudette Colvin for refusing to give up her seat to a white person went largely unreported and is completely unknown to many. Yet Rosa Park's actions just nine months later have become legendary and a story repeated in textbooks worldwide. I'd argue part of the reason Rosa Park's received more recognition was that she was mixed race with lighter skin and had the appearance of a working professional (i.e. she was probably going to be "better received" by the target audience of white people sitting on the fence on the issue).
I'm cool with it, but it doesn't affect me as directly as it does others, so I dunno. I watch a lot of these social experiments, and it really sucks how people react. There was one where a man dressed in a suit would fall over, and loads of people would help him up, and then he changed his outfit to look like a homeless man and no-one helped him. The only person who tried to help was a homeless man. People in general are just terrible to people they see as 'less important' than them. It sucks that stuff like this is still happening.
