State University of New York at Stony Brook
                       Stony Brook, NY 11790-0651

                                            Marc Gunning
                                            25-Feb-1992 01:59pm EST
FROM:  MGUNNING
TO:    Lesbigay  Netters                    ( _gaynet@athena.mit.edu )

SUBJECT: While cleaning out my files...                               

I found this essay I wrote for the the publication "OUT on Campus".  
It's long, but maybe it'll spark some discussion in the interim of 
my being able to get back onto the Net.  "OUT on Campus" is published
by the American College Personnel Associations Standing Committee on 
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Awareness.  It's edited by John Mueller here
at U.S.B., and he's often looking for submissions to be included in
new editions.  (John also receives GayNet, so you can contact him 
through the Net.)

                    Beyond the Pecking Order

"As a black woman, a lesbian, a feminist and an activist, I can
see how the different forms of oppression interconnect if for no
other reason than their meshings so often affect my life."
     - Barbara Smith

     Is racism worse than sexism?  Is heterosexism less important
than either of those?  I ask this question because there seems to
be a pecking order being placed on these forms of oppression that
pits marginalized groups against each other and invalidates the
intermingling that occurs within all classes of people.  The end
result is a general weakening of the ties and bonds that need to
be strengthened between all groups of people.
     Racism, sexism and heterosexism are different forms of
oppression running on parallel tracks that interconnect at
various points.  Research has shown, for example, that people who
maintain racist attitudes also tend to maintain sexist and
homophobic attitudes.  Yet homophobia exists among some people of
color, racism exist in the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities,
sexism and misogyny exists in the gay male communities.  The
validity of the call for tolerance and acceptance of lesbigay
people is weakened when it is made by people who are intolerant
of others.
     I took the "politically correct" way out when I wrote that
last sentence.  I wanted to write:  "The validity of OUR call for
tolerance and acceptance of lesbigay people is weakened when we
are intolerant of others."  Of course, we aren't the problem.  We
are open minded. We don't discriminate or oppress others.  At
least that's the comfortable way of looking at things, although
it's not always truthful.
     When I speak on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues, I
sometimes anger people when I talk about "pseudo-liberals". 
Pseudo-liberals are fence sitters.  They are the people who often
talk about how bad racism/sexism/homophobia is, yet they rarely
do something about it.  They like to profess how open minded they
are, yet rarely engage in soul searching about where their values
truly lie.  They may speak about acceptance and tolerance but
rarely, if ever, about admiration, respect, appreciation or
support.  They are often vehement in their denial that they may
be prejudiced.  And they often get angry and defensive when they
hear themselves being described.
     I can handle an open bigot because at least I know up front
where he or she is coming from.  I can use logic and rational
arguments to defuse the impact that they can have on myself and
others.  A pseudo-liberal, however, can inflict much more damage. 
Since they are only willing to go so far, the sudden withdrawal
of support and assistance can be devastating to someone in need.
It's like having a dentist drill out the decay in a cavity and
then not fill it.
     We need to fully understand the impact that the racism,
sexism, and heterosexism in our society has on us.  For example,
as a male of European descent, I must accept the fact that I have
received at least two points of privilege by an accident of
birth.  I must also accept the fact that these two points of
privilege come at the expense of someone else's equal status in
this society.  When I drive the long island Expressway (an
oxymoron, of course) in a fancy car, I rarely get pulled over by
the police.  My friends of African descent don't enjoy that
privilege.  A young Black man in a fancy car is suspect in our
society and pays a heavy price for that prejudice.
     One needs only to look at history to see how each of these
issues affect us all.  Ethnocentricity and racism, for example,
may be one of the root causes of homophobia and heterosexism. 
The Eurocentric tradition of conquer, colonize and exploit has
had devastating effects on many world cultures.  Cases in point
include the near genocide of Native Americans; the enslavement of
many Africans; the British occupation of India and subsequent
massacres of many of its people and the Apartheid system in South
Africa.  These traditions included the belief that Judeo-
Christian ethics were superior to all other beliefs and
practices.  As a result for many centuries, inhuman acts against
lesbian, gay and bisexual people and people who practiced other
religions were often rationalized in the name of God.
     Additionally, sexism and misogyny may very well be tied into
the origins of homophobia and heterosexism.   Our society
devalues women and the roles that they play in it.  There are
many indicates of this:  the bias crimes of rape and domestic
violence; the under-representation of women in our executive work
force; the exploitation of women as objects of sexual desire in
advertising practices; etc.  Indeed, the very value of a woman in
this society is often gauged by her availability for sexually
satisfying men.   Lesbian women are devalued because of their
gender and because they do not make themselves available to men. 
Recent reports about the high incidence of men raping lesbian
women seem to bear this out.  Gay men are often perceived as
having given up their male privilege and as acting like women. 
Again, reports about the rape of gay men by non-gay men lend
evidence to this.  (Read Homophobia:  A Weapon of Sexism by
Suzanne Pharr (1988) for a more indepth examination of this
theory.)
     Additionally, it is important for us to realize how the
forms of oppression interconnect through examining the
implementation of systematic oppression.  I believe that there
are five very basic systematic ways in which oppression is
instituted.  I outlined these five ways at last year's ACPA
conference in Atlanta in a presentation called "Intervention
Strategies for Assisting Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Persons."
     The first method is to accentuate differences between the
oppressors and the oppressed.  Members of the oppressing group
often take an ethnocentric, egocentric view towards the group
members of the oppressed group.  Any similarities that may exist
between the groups are often invalidated and ignored, while
differences are exaggerated.  "Our" ways becomes better than
"their" ways.  Some specific examples in history include:  the
darker skin tone of people of African descent was often used as
"evidence" of inferiority by persons of European descent; the
cross gender role behavior exhibited by some gay and lesbian
people was often cited as evidence of poor social adjustment,
emotional distress or retarded psychosexual development.
     The second method was to dehumanize and demonize the
oppressed group.  The oppressors devalues the role that the
oppressed group has had in its society and its history.  Labels
and names that dehumanize the oppressed group are used with
greater frequency, and members of the oppressed group are often
treated as less than human.  Some specific examples in history
include buying and selling enslaved people as if they were
livestock;  the incarceration of physically and otherwise
challenged people in institutions and denying them fundamental
treatment and care; the myths about Jewish people having tales
and horns; the World War II propaganda movies depicting the
Japanese as a sadistic, twisted people.
     The third method is to "establish" that the members of the
oppressed group are a threat to the well being of the society. 
The utilization of this method include the proliferation of
propaganda and distortions to accentuate fears about the group to
oppressed.  Institutional support (educational, medical, civil,
etc.) is often garnered to be used against the oppressed group. 
The oppressed group is purported to be a threat to the values,
economy, religious beliefs, morals, or overall well being of the
society.  An especially insidious, yet highly effective, use of
this method includes portraying the oppressed group as a threat
to children.  Some examples in history include:  immediately
prior to the Holocaust, the Nazis spread rumors that Jews cooked
and ate little German children;  up until very recently, many
women were routinely prescribed addictive  such as Valium for
problems that did not warrant such medicines; during the 1970's
Anita Bryant and John Briggs sought to portray lesbian, gay and
bisexual people as a threat to children and "traditional" family
values.
     The fourth method is to remove equal protection and rights. 
Institutional systems are used to ensure that the oppressed group
does not receive financial, legal, or civil protection.  Often
laws that discriminate are passed because the oppressed group has
little power to stop them from being enacted.  Specific examples
include:  at the start of the Holocaust, Jews were denied access
to public transportation systems, forbidden from participating in
the theater, and were forced out of positions of authority and/or
power;  the United States military is permitted to discriminate
against lesbigay people despite overwhelming evidence that its
reasons for doing so are invalid;  "Jim Crow" laws were passed in
many states that allowed for separate public utilities for
"blacks" and "whites".
     The final step is to resort to violence.  Opposition to
oppression is often met with brutal violence from the oppressors. 
Verbal and physical harassment, bias related crimes, and
violations of civil rights are common and often encouraged by
some members of the oppressing group.  Some of the specific
examples of this include:  from about 1850 to 1950, approximately
five thousand men and boys of African descent were lynched,
burned, beaten or shot to death in the United States;  in the
1930's, Ghandhi's famous salt marches and other nonviolent
demonstrations were often met with violent opposition from
colonial British troops; bias related violence against lesbian,
gay and bisexual people is the fastest growing hate crime in the
United States.
     By taking a global view of the differing forms of oppression
we can begin to see how interwoven they become.  Our
responsibility, once realizing this, is to take ownership for
each form of oppression as if it directly affected us.  Since
there is an intermingling of marginalized people within all our
communities, we strengthen our communities by recognizing the
unique needs and experiences of underrepresented lesbian, gay and
bisexual people.  Additionally, we gain the opportunity to build
coalitions and support among marginalized group rather than
continuing the self defeating fight to maintain a pecking order. 
     Our communities are a source of strength, support, and
enrichment.  In order to maintain these qualities, we need to
continue to make our communities open, accessible and welcoming
to our members and our allies.  In order to truly end oppression,
we must build bridges that span the schisms that exist between
groups of marginalized people and forge coalitions.  In order to
establish the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people we must
ensure that they do not come at the expense of another's rights. 
By making the true commitment to stand united against all forms
of oppression and bigotry, we form a patchwork majority of
substance and power.  We then can fully realize the meaning of
Martin Luther King, Jr's words, "Injustice anywhere is a threat
to justice everywhere."_