Luxuriating in Victimhood

Stephen Miller says this is "luxuriating in victimhood". I think Miller's right. Of course, identifying as a victim may be an important, positive, and healthy stage that people go through in an overall gestalt of their development. But Larry Kramer has been stuck there for a very, very long time. Thoughts?

Comments

[Huw]

We (the Gay & Lesbian Union of NYU) thought Larry was stuck in some retro mode when he spoke at our conference in 1984: we'd ask innocent questions about clearly gay-friendly politicians or religious leaders in NYC and Larry would nearly foam at the mouth in reply.

Same shtick, different millennium.

[Alan]

I would say that being a victim, one would generally sit back and do nothing but complain about being a victim.

That's very different from what Mr. Kramer has done with his life. He's organized numerous organizations and fought for years for the rights of LGBT folks. That doesn't sound like "luxuriating in victimhood" to me. Rather than begging for crumbs from the master's table, he decided to simply do the work himself.

Recognizing that, in the end, we can only depend on ourselves because a plurality (if not a majority) of straight people are not going to lift a finger to help us isn't victimhood, it's reality, at this point in our history.

And we wonder why we've never had a gay MLK? Perhaps it's because we tend to beat up our community leaders. Our community may not be "luxuriating in victimhood" but it is certainly "luxuriating in nitpicking."

[joe perez]

Well put. I like how you express yourself.

I disagree on Kramer, though what I would say is this: Kramer's actual life practice--the enormous benefit he has done in the world, his enthusiasm, his courage--are at odds with his own self-understanding of himself as a victim and gays as uber-victims. I think gays and others would do well to emulate Kramer as he has actually lived his life, not to listen to the understanding that he has of the motivations for that life. Human beings are never so blind as when we are trying to look at ourselves. Kramer's understanding of himself--the luxuriating in victimhood thing--is deeply flawed and, I believe, poisonous to himself and others. It is no nitpicking or king-killing to identify the short-sightedness of vision of Kramer or anyone else. Real leaders are used to stepping into the fire of public debate and willing to take the heat. And Kramer is such a leader.

I have a question for you. You believe that a plurality or majority of "straight people are not going to lift a finger to help us". How do you go about proving something like this? In fact, opinion polls show that most Americans support the combination of gay marriage OR gay civil unions; major US churches such as the Episcopal Church and UCC affirm gay people and have inclusive policies; there are example after example of gays seeking and obtaining not only tolerance and acceptance, but strong embrace by the public. Ellen DeGeneris winning accolades for hosting the Oscars recently comes to mind. Gays coming out in pro sports for another. If you are open to all the evidence, how do you prove that most Americans would leave gays sitting bleeding at the side of the road (literally not lifting a finger to help us)?

There is data and facts; and then there is judgment and opinion. Your pessimistic views of gays as not being supported by Americans are judgment and opinion. I invite you to look for the hard evidence to back up your opinion; and if you fail to find it, consider changing your opinion.

[Alan]

I would disagree with your premise because, in my opinion, I believe you're conflating opinion polls with real action.

For example, indeed, a slim majority of straight people are, if not supportive of, at least are not openly hostile to gay marriage and/or civil unions (far more so for civil unions than marriage.) That's the opinion poll. The reality? Anti-gay marriage amendments have passed in nearly every state in which they've been introduced. In fact, the notable exception, Arizona, seems to also provide a warrant for my claim because it is widely believed that the only reason the measure didn't pass there was because the case was well made that it would effect straight people too. Thus it seems straight people voted their own self interest, not out of altruism for LGBT folk. Recognizing that fact isn't victimhood, and it might not be predicted by opinion polls, but it is the reality of the situation as it stands today.

One might object to my characterization of the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments by arguing that those amendments don't actually reflect the will of the general population of those states because those voting for them were a wildly overrepresented minority of religious and social conservatives. However such an argument fails because the issue wasn't apparently interesting enough to get the liberal straight people (that slim majority that say they support gay marriage and/or civil unions) out to the polls to vote the measures down -- which again still provides a warrant for my claims.

As for gays coming out in sports, the most recent one I can think of involved a man no longer playing for the NBA. There aren't, as far as I know (and my knowledge and interest in professional sports is negligible) any out athletes in the major sports who are still playing. So, it's hard to guess how people's opinions about out gay athletes would actually intersect with the reality of an out athlete who is still playing. Would attendance at their games go down, would there be protests, loss of sponsorship, etc.? We don't know. But the fact alone that someone who isn't playing came out doesn't tell us much. So then, I don't think those instances provide much support for either my claim or yours.

And, when it comes to churches, one has to recognize that the UCC and Episcopal church, while encouraging, are certainly the exceptions, not the rule. In the PCUSA, the denomination to which I and my husband belong, LGBT folks can't even get ordained, and marriage is definitely out. (Though there are a few instances of people being ordained or married in defiance of these rules, it is still the case that the rules are set against both.) In fact, in the PCUSA, every time the ordination question comes to a vote, LGBT ordination is voted down, by an increasingly larger margin each time. The situations are similar in most of the other large denominations. So again, opinion polls are one thing; the reality is different, and the reality supports my claim, unfortunately.

I think Kramer recognizes the reality, as opposed to the opinion polls. Recognizing that reality isn't luxuriating in victimhood, it's simply recognizing the world for what it is today: a place where LGBT folks need to take care of their own.

Obviously Kramer doesn't do much to bring straight folks along in terms of acceptance. But I think the fact that he doesn't do much to foster those sorts of connections does not make him a professional victim. And making those connections is a completely different question than whether or not one is a professional victim.

[Huw]

I don't think we're in a world where anyone can afford to "take care of their own". That's the message of US vs Them that will just get us all into trouble. Larry perpetuates it: I don't think the human community can afford it.

I don't think we need to confuse the good that one has done with the bad. Yes, some good things come out fo Larry's work, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Culture of Victimhood he thrusts on all of us is unhealthy and isolating rather than integrating.