In terms of Stonewall influence, the only founders with any great ongoing sway are likely to be those with funder power i.e. money or the ability to attract it.
Stonewall's pragmatism and practicality has always been one of its attractive qualities for me, which is one reason I'm currently bitterly disappointed. Much of the rest of the "respectably radical" gay movement of the eighties hated its guts, but it never got demonstrated against till now.
I suppose I'm relatively conservative, in gay terms. Monogamous 18 year relationship, civil partnership, etc. But I certainly don;t agree with Bindel's loathing of trans people which is based on her reactionary radical feminism.
However, I think that how to approach Stonewall needs to be handled carefully.I think its fair to say that Stonewall will never be 'queer' and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. For me, its not so much about expecting Stonewall to expand its horizons or change its essentially assimilationist/mainstreaming politics. But ensuring that they do not actively oppose those with different priorities, in particular by giving platforms and nominations to those whose agendas are hostile - thats a winnable aim. Because it actually isn't pragmatic or sensible.
maybe its up to those of us who are a bit more conservative but don't agree with Stonewall's actions. Are there any others out there - if so, I'd be interested to hear from them
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-08 11:37 am (UTC)In terms of Stonewall influence, the only founders with any great ongoing sway are likely to be those with funder power i.e. money or the ability to attract it.
Stonewall's pragmatism and practicality has always been one of its attractive qualities for me, which is one reason I'm currently bitterly disappointed. Much of the rest of the "respectably radical" gay movement of the eighties hated its guts, but it never got demonstrated against till now.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-11 12:53 am (UTC)However, I think that how to approach Stonewall needs to be handled carefully.I think its fair to say that Stonewall will never be 'queer' and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. For me, its not so much about expecting Stonewall to expand its horizons or change its essentially assimilationist/mainstreaming politics. But ensuring that they do not actively oppose those with different priorities, in particular by giving platforms and nominations to those whose agendas are hostile - thats a winnable aim. Because it actually isn't pragmatic or sensible.
maybe its up to those of us who are a bit more conservative but don't agree with Stonewall's actions. Are there any others out there - if so, I'd be interested to hear from them