To whom, homosexuality was nearly uniformly considered an abomination 50 years ago and by the vast majority only 30 years ago.

What caused that change? How can pro-choice advocates hope to duplicate it?

Gay does not equal male. It equals 'not straight'.

But the OP is about LGBT progress, not the progress of gay men alone. To equate 'gay' with 'male' is sexist as well as homophobic. And gay men are not equally represented in power positions. To the extent that we are comes from activism and great personal risk by many people. It was won. There's not much of it, but what there is was won, not given.

to women. The gay issues are outside their home - the omen issues inside their homes. Then you have some women fighting against women's issues for religious reasons as well as basic fear.

I know that's not what you meant to write but...please, DON'T change it!

Most of those who make decisions for us are at least at ease. They can buy pills or other contraceptive products without insurance if necessary. They have access to doctors that can practice an abortion if needed. They do not need the clinics that are in danger of disappearing and they probably will know if they want to stop a pregnancy before 20 weeks (or 24) and go for large distances if they need to.
So, those women who have led the charge for equality do not feel highly threatened by these restrictions anymore.

On the contrary, discrimination against gay people affect all of them. All cant get married, all can be refused a job legally. ...

and the reason why republican democrat among women breaks married unmarried, is that married women are wealthier.

I don't think women are are a united front in any respect and I think wealthy women like it when the not wealthy suffer and it makes them feel more comfortable with themselves.

It didn't just start yesterday. We've (the LGBT community) been slogging away at this since the 1969 Stonewall Riots. Roe v. Wade was ruled on in 1973. However, what it comes down to IMO, is that women are in some ways infantilized. We aren't capable of making big decisions for ourselves, so "daddy" has to make them for us. Also, it really is a hard movement to get good PR behind (the pro-choice movement). Who is the pro-choice movements' Ellen? Because I think she did a lot to help the LGBT equality movement.

Too many women kiss their ignorant man's ass and believe that they are not equal to men because their religion and/or socialization told them they were inferior and they bought the lie.

LGBT are all on the same page...we are united in solidarity against the oppression of the ignorant bigots. As ridiculous as Log Cabin Republicans are, they still support LGBT equality.

When I hear/see women speak against Feminism it makes me want to cut myself.

It's not the way LGBT people did it.
December 10, 1989- At the link is some video of the Action by ACT UP at St Patrick's in NYC.
http://vimeo.com/62215171

I have far too many female friends and family on Facebook constantly posting pro-life/pro-conservative memes day after day after day.

If women want to stop this bullshit dead in it's tracks, that shit needs to stop. I'll be damned if my daughter grows up like that.

If women were all for equality, they would probably have it by now. They've got the numbers. Instead, you've got people like Ann Coulter who go around saying that women shouldn't be able to vote. You've got these crazed women at abortion protests. Women are in desperate need of solidarity on basic issues of freedom.

Far too many women are satisfied with the status quo - kiss the man's ass and stick your head in the sand. Anyone raised Catholic, like me, knows the family and social pressure to just go along to get along.

I really want to vomit when I hear women speak against Feminism. Bad for them and bad for all of us.

and main reason.

I routinely meet women who, I think, are less feminist than I am. If I lived elsewhere, that could very well change.

that could be applied to issues specifically related to women. One could make the same case for just about any activist group, they should try looking at LGBT history or if that's 'too gay' look to the cannabis reform movement. Both movements have had victories that elude other advocacy groups. There are lessons to be learned from those who gain an objective by those who wish to gain their own objectives.

advance their causes.

not to say that comms used to articulate the right to full, unimpeded, non-terrorized women's healthcare couldn't use a makeover, but he's way off on some of his assumptions.

especially love that he says the movement isn't capitalist and/or grassroots enough -- essentially saying "you don't have enough celebrities pitching," and that the spokespersons for choice are too "privileged." Youch. Internal inconsistency much?

After the Civil War reformers made a conscious decision to press for black men to get suffrage but refused to do the same for women. With the exception of the vote, most of the women's rights sought by Progressives in the early part of the twentieth century were focused on protective legislation (Mueller v Oregon) not equality. There is a consistent message, that some groups need access to rights more than women.

Part of this is because women are always part of these groups - African-Americans, immigrants, the LGBT community - so reformers and politicians always stress that women gain too. The problem is that, with the exception of the LGTB community, women in these groups are generally dependent on the men in their group who have gained rights to give women access to those rights, which doesn't always happen.

Women also have a disadvantage in a full-on battle because women are firmly connected to men - they are our brothers and fathers and sons and (for the majority of women) our lovers and husbands - and too many women see rights as some sort of finite entity, that by giving women rights that it will somehow impact their husbands and sons.

Our current second place finish is consistent with history. I want to make the point that it is perfectly possible to cheer on other groups gaining rights and still feel resentment that women are losing theirs - it's not that we want anyone else to not have rights, it's just that we want them too.

Very well said, I especially liked your last paragraph.

NAILS it, kiva! Still second-class all the way for us women, isn't it. Second-place. Ironic that in all the other groups asserting or gaining more rights - probably at least half of them are female. Just statistical stuff, that's all.

It is NOT true that an expansion or further protection of one group's rights automatically somehow equals the diminishment or dismissal of some other group's rights. WHY is that myth still perpetuated? Why are there significant (although CLEARLY in the minority) groups who feel they're thus somehow aggrieved? I guess that's the "Zombie Lies" that Bill Maher talked about last Friday night...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/11/bill-maher-gop-continues-to-spread-lies-that-are-neither-alive-nor-dead-like-dick-cheney/

However, it is important, also, that we use the women's/feminists' story as instructive, a cautionary tale if you will, to other groups. Because I definitely DO worry about these new rights and freedoms and protections that the gay community has fought so hard to win. That's where WE were, back in the '70s. Fighting like hell for the ERA and for the rights and freedoms that we finally won with Roe v Wade. And we came up short with the ERA (I still don't understand why that fight was so quickly given up! WHY did we concede that point??? WHY???????) and I guess too many of us felt that the Supreme Court of that time ruled the way it did on Roe v Wade, that was that. Fixed. Problem solved. Done. Time to relax and let down our guard. Let's all go back to sleep. THAT WAS MISTAKE #1!!! I hope to God the LGBT community has learned from that utterly STUPID and SENSELESS move on our part. DO NOT EVER assume it's done, that the law is settled, the issue is decided, the fight is over and we won. Because the opposition doesn't see it that way. And if we're to prevail, ultimately, over that opposition, unfortunately we have to see it the way THEY see it - which is - it's NOT done. This is NOT the last word, we're gonna KEEP fighting til we reverse it and take your rights away from you. Period. They kept up against our rights and now they have Roe v Wade on the ropes.

Dear LGBT folks - DO NOT let that happen to you! Because YOUR opposition is not done with YOU, either. They won't accept your victory or concede defeat. And they WILL be back. In more ways than you can imagine. Trying to figure out ANY way to strip those rights away from you, or whittle them down so that they're nothing - so that they're so small they're like that big bar of soap you left in the soap dish in the shower and didn't move, and after the shower water runs for long enough, that big bar of soap is just a sliver that breaks as soon as you try to pick it up - or it's just a little pile of goo at the bottom of the soap dish. That's where women's rights are now.

DO NOT let that happen to you! Because that's what ABSOLUTELY WILL happen to you if you do not remain vigilant!!! Because those folks against you will NEVER go away and they certainly won't concede defeat, and they will NEVER admit that you won, or that you were correct on the issue, or that maybe God might actually have been on YOUR side this time.

Whenever there's a new person at work and we're getting to know each other the first question is always "Are you married?" When I say "no" they say "Why not, don't you like men?" I'm serious.

However I assume people think I am gay, which I am not. I have just never really wanted to be married or have children. The whole domestic thing does not attract me. I like being single and childfree. It just amazes me how many people cannot accept that some women actually prefer to live this way instead of chained to domestic servitude.

I am on the other side of 50. I used to think I wanted to be married, but it really wasn't true. The single, child-free life does have its blessings!

I am very happily divorced and have an adult daughter who lives here with me. I will NEVER marry again. Marriage is VERY over-rated IMO. The single life does, indeed, have its blessings as you said!

aw HELL no.....I most certainly give off a NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS vibe

Do you use birth control? - NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

Why don't you have children? - NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

She was, and is, very cool and an inspiration!

"Why would I want to do a dumb thing like that?" The looks I get are priceless!

I never had to deal with "don't you like women" before I got married. People need to keep their ignorant mouths shut.

By being tightly focused and united in purpose, gay activists has been able to connect with the soundbite generation. Which is very hard to do unless you keep repeating the same message and concept over and over. I get the impression they were always on the same page.

With women, there are so many differences between different generations, socioeconomic strata, religious beliefs, married/unmarried, ethnic groups, etc. So much division that a single message is impossible.

Unlike the male half that all agree on what exactly?

All these differences exist within the LGBT community as well. Just saying.

Maybe it has less to do with the message than with society's relative receptiveness to it. For whatever reasons, gay rights messages have resonated more with the public in recent decades than messages of empowerment for women (with superficial exceptions like "girl power&quot .

...GLBT are united by our identity, despite those differences; women are not. That same statement could made of AA too, but they were untied by the colors of their skin. Some (more than few) don't see women as a minority, not in the classical sense, and therefore, don't see rulings (like Hobby Lobby) as attacks on a specific group. Those who can see it, do so because we know the power of politics and minority status, and accept that women are a minority. Though neither the AA or GLBT communities are uniform in our thinking, we do tend to be more cohesive when it comes to political battles and it is that cohesion which has translated into some power and victories.

Not to mention, of course, men's solidarity with women, and hetero men's solidarity with LGBT people, against the far right's political attacks. More of all these things would go a long way in political terms.

Much of what AA's have, GLBT have, the physically challenged have are do to the assistance of our allies. The real issue for women in this sense is they are such a LARGE minority, it is almost impossible to forge solidarity. Hell, look how hard it can be for small minorities like Jews. Sometimes, I feel the "solidarity" can be expressed by simply not standing in the way. You'd be surprised at the number of GLB people who are against marriage equality!

(PS...it should read "hetero". Straight women are also needed.)

Admittedly my "activism" is almost entirely limited to online commenting.

I will say there are some things that really need to be the responsibility of women and men should step aside, and then there are times when any voice, male or female, is important; and on occasion, sometimes, it needs to be the male who steps up.

Then compare the number of women who identify as Republicans to the total female population of the country.

There's a major delta in populations.

because that is the ONLY thing keeping us from running over the right wing like a steamroller.

The fact is, the GOP has been dividing women up into parts, whereas the LGBTS are forced together.

Thanks.

do not think that the GOp is not trying to divide up the LGBTS. There is a reason none other than Dick (my daughter will be first female prez before Hillary) Cheney said he would support gay Marriage. Also, a lot of the libertarians and center dems would love to appeal to LGBTS, but have them be against others (like Arianna H. and her log cabin GOP friends.) Remember how Prop 8 was blamed on Blacks, and not on the fact the Mormons poured cash into TV.

They will try to divide the LGBTS, but the truth is, most LGBTS from kid on realize that people will LIE and TRICK to get control.

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Suits have already been filed to exclude LGBT empioyees from certain coverage on religious grounds. This thing is going to snowball.

Both the civil rights and gay rights movements focused on the legal fight in a way I don't think that the women's rights movements has.

The gay rights movement started at low levels like with Harvey Milk in San Francisco where they were likely to succeed. And they haven't tried to strike down laws against gay marriage or such at the national level instead proceeding at the state level like Lawrence v Texas.

The civil rights movement used a lot of civil suits to get some lower level legal decisions in their favor and leveraged that upwards. Granted they did have Thurgood Marshall, but the overall strategy was still effective.

I think that the women's rights movement hasn't been able work within the existing legal structure in the same way. Additionally I think the women's rights movement is almost too broad. There's equal pay, there's reproductive rights, there's domestic violence, there's the overall patriarchal society, etc. I think focusing on one or two things at a time would be more effective than trying to fight on all fronts at once.

It's obvious from response to the Isla Vista shootings and other issues that sexism is considered normalized.

You don't have to be a patriarchal religious fundie to be an enemy of women's rights, plenty of "progressives" here think that the status of women in the US is just grand and feminists are whiny pony-wanters.

I think many do see oppression of women as bigotry. The real problem is they don't always see the oppression; therefore, there is no way they can see the bigotry. Until they can be made to see the oppression, they will never see the bigotry and discussing it or fighting to undo it is pretty much a lost cause. The narrative has to change.

Just a natural circumstance of the conditions of living as the female gender, and/or that the issues we raise are not gender-based.

I agree the narrative needs to change, and they don't see the bigotry. Discussing it will have to be part of changing the narrative, imo.

Until that narrative is changed, there will be little hope of getting those who can't see the oppression, to see it as bigotry. Discussion is important, but it also has to meet the needs of the target audience. One can't talk calculus with someone who can't add.

does that mean lesbians are at .500 going into the All-Star break?

LGBT people have won protection from employment discrimination? Housing discrimination? Societal response to epidemics of homelessness, poverty, and disease in the LGBT community? Even in the cases where we have won laws addressing those issues, they ALWAYS include overly broad religious exemptions that have exactly the same effects as the recent Hobby Lobby decision has on women.

A few states have allowed financial secure people in stable same-sex relationships to gain entrance into the institution of marriage, but don't make that for actual equality for the entirety of the LGBT community.

It's not a competition. It should not be a competition. Everyone deserves full equality and protection from bigotry. Everyone.