site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But it doesn't follow that this would cause gays to become rich and cool.

But not all gays, that's the thing! The original post makes it sound like "all the cool rich smart gay people" and it's not, as shown; it's the well-off white gay guys (and then presumably the well-off Asian, etc. gay guys follow).

There's plenty of shit holes and dirty, run-down gay areas; think of the legendary Stonewall Inn (the original one, at least); started off as a speakeasy and was owned by the Mafia. Not salubrious or high-class at all; gentrification comes later.

The better-off gays make a neighbourhood fancy and gentrified and it becomes high cost of living, and the poorer ones move out to another run-down area, or never left the blue-collar neigbourhoods in the first place.

It seems to come down to "white people more likely"; now that identification as LGBT+ is more widespread, common, and accepted, a lot more younger people are identifying as some variety of queer, and being younger means being poorer, as does being BIPOC:

While the pandemic impacts U.S. workers across all demographic groups, the Household Pulse data indicate that LGBTQ+ workers are disproportionately affected, compared to non-LGBTQ+ individuals. Approximately 28 percent of LGBTQ+ respondents said they experienced some form of job loss since LGBTQ+ data collection began last July. Comparably, 18 percent of non-LGBTQ+ respondents reported job loss in the same time frame.

The data indicate that age plays an intersecting role in work-loss experience. LGBTQ+ respondents between the ages of 25 and 39 and 40 and 54 had the highest rates of job losses, while older, non-LGBTQ+ respondents had the lowest rates.

These data are further validated by research from the Movement Advancement Project, which shows that LGBTQ+ individuals with additional demographic intersectionalities face greater rates of job loss. Black and Latinx LGBTQ+ households in the United States experienced higher rates of employment or wage loss, at 60 percent and 71 percent, respectively, between July 2020 and August 2020, compared to non-LGBTQ+ households of all races (45 percent).

While the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic played a significant role in increasing unemployment and decreasing incomes among LGBTQ+ workers, these disparities have been building in recent decades in the United States. Research from 2021, for instance, finds that the lesbian wage premium fell from around 10 percent in 2000 to almost zero in 2018. The Center for LGBTQ+ Economic Advancement and Research, or CLEAR, finds that in 2019, 31 percent of Black LGBT households and 24 percent of Latinx LGBT households reported earning less than $25,000 annually, compared to 24 percent of Black non-LGBT households and 15 percent of Latinx non-LGBT households.

Disparities in employment loss between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ workers may also be driven by a large share of LGBTQ+ individuals being employed in industries hardest hit by the pandemic. Analysis by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, for instance, finds that in 2018, the five industries with the greatest share of LGBTQ+ employees were restaurant and food services (15 percent of LGBTQ+ adults), hospitals and healthcare (7.5 percent), K–12 education (7 percent), colleges and universities (7 percent), and retail (4 percent). These five industries have experienced the greatest disruptions in employment since the onset of the pandemic, which comes on top of the already-low wages widely experienced in three of these industries—hospitality, retail, and K–12 education.

All the coffeeshop waitstaff may be making an area cool, but they're not making it rich. That comes later with waves of gentrification and as enclaves become more established, more identified as 'the gay neighbourhood' and therefore more desirable as the place to go and live when you're leaving your small town for that life where you can be out and proud. As these places become older, the population shifts to the better-off; it's the 7 percent of gays in academia who are making places 'richer', not the 15 percent working in bars and restaurants.

Another report from 2022 on the opposite claim that LGBT+ are poorer, not rich and cool:

Compared with the general population, LGBTQI+ people face significant challenges that obstruct pathways to achieving economic security, including discrimination in employment and housing, workforce exclusion, and lack of access to jobs that pay well and offer benefits that meet their needs and those of their families. For LGBTQI+ people with disabilities, LGBTQI+ communities of color, and transgender people, these barriers to reach economic stability are heightened.

...New data from the HPS [Household Pulse Survey] reveal that:

LGBT households are more likely to live in poverty. LGBT individuals were more likely than non-LGBT individuals to report a household income of less than $25,000 in 2020, at 20 percent compared with 14 percent. Put another way, many LGBT individuals live in households that are at or near the poverty line. LGBT respondents of color (26 percent) and transgender respondents (28 percent) are even more likely to earn less than $25,000.

LGBT households are more likely to report losing a source of employment income. On average, from July 2021 to April 2022, LGBT individuals were also more likely than non-LGBT individuals to report that they or someone in their household had lost a source of employment income in the past four weeks, at 21 percent compared with 15 percent. These disparities are heightened among LGBT respondents of color (26 percent) and transgender respondents (29 percent), which was a consistent trend for the past year.

LGBT households experience more difficulty paying household expenses. On average, from July 2021 to April 2022, LGBT individuals were more likely than non-LGBT individuals to report that it has been somewhat or very difficult for their household to pay for usual household expenses in the past week, at 38 percent compared with 29 percent, with rates consistently highest among LGBT respondents of color (46 percent) and transgender respondents (50 percent). Usual household expenses include but are not limited to food, rent or mortgage, car payments, medical expenses, and student loans.

...LGBTQI+ people experience labor market disparities, as they often struggle to find employment; when they do, they often work in low-wage occupations.

...LGBT people are more likely to work at grocery and convenience stores. LGBT respondents were nearly twice as likely as non-LGBT respondents to report working at food or beverage stores, which include grocery stores and convenience stores, at 11 percent compared with 6 percent. LGBT respondents of color (12 percent) and transgender respondents (14 percent) were also more likely to report working at food or beverage stores.

The white, college-educated, PMC gays are the ones living in the high-property value areas of the expensive cities. The less educated, or non-white, gays may be living in the expensive cities, but not in the high-end areas. Working there, maybe, as a grocery store clerk or waitstaff in the café. But not being patrons of the opera or attending the Met Gala as the big bucks donors.