It is understandable how the queer or LGBT community in the United States could be considered a melting pot. After all, there are so many identities regarding sexuality that I believe the only plausible solution is to view them all as one blended identity: queer. Personally, I think calling the queer community a “melting pot” is very appropriate and accurate; much more appropriate and accurate than calling the United States a “melting pot.” I have never been a big fan of dividing and separating the queer community. People (straights AND queers) are so bent up on identifying and color-coding other people. For instance, originally, the “queer community” was just L and G. Then B was reluctantly added. Then T even more so reluctantly. And it didn’t stop there. Then a Q was thrown in there for Queer (which seems repetitive to me), or Questioning, depending on who you talk to. Then of course the I for Intersex, and the A for Allies. Frankly, it’s just too much. I usually just try to avoid all of it, and just go for Queer. To me, Queer encompasses everybody who’s not straight—which I truly believe is actually a much higher percentage than the straights. This is why I think the term “melting pot” for the queer community is quite appropriate. Why not just simplify it, melt all the different sexualities together and come out with something that fits all of us: Queer.
Unfortunately, I realize that there are still some members of the queer community, as well as our allies, who are not big fans of the Q word. My mother, someone who has always undoubtedly supported gay rights, and who is also staunchly politically correct, was horrified the first time she heard me say queer. In her mind, queer is an incredibly offensive term. I also know plenty of people my own age who don’t like the word queer, opting for lesbian or bi or gay. But I think doing so complicates something that’s already incredibly complicated. There are so many facets of sexuality that it is impossible to go with LGBTQIA without somehow leaving someone out. Dividing the queer community will only prove to be problematic.
The description of America as a “melting pot” has always disturbed/confused me. The image implies that you combine all these ingredients and in the end product is this homogenous whole. The process reminds me of making some kind of alloyed metal. The imagery suggests that people come in different shapes, sizes, and colors but eventually everyone becomes indiscernible. I would much prefer to think of America (and really all cultures) as a bowl of gumbo or pasta salad or as a group of pizza toppings (my apologies, but my life is fairly food-centered). To me these images give the appearance of a lot of different ingredients that enhance the whole. Everyone has something valuable to contribute to the entire pot or pie. No one ingredient is more important that the others; you can’t have (supreme) pizza without pepperoni and peppers and you can’t have gumbo without sausage and chicken. This kind of thought process negates the need for homogeneity which is the root of many intergroup struggles in society.
The idea of a “melting pot” is a nice sentiment but not an accurate description of what is really going on. I agree with Miranda in that the LGBT community has been divided over and over and over again, and this division does make it difficult to place the focus on the group as a whole instead of each individual subgroup. It’s the same with any group wanting civil right: instead of having women’s rights we have lesbian groups, straight groups, religious groups, white groups, colored groups, rich groups, poor groups, etc. Having a “melting pot” in terms of working together to obtain natural deserved rights would be appropriate, though like Andrew said, we don’t want to become monotonous and globalized. Keeping cultures among different groups does not interfere from working together and would benefit everyone involved. It’s not only gays, lesbians, transgenders, transsexuals, bisexuals, etc. that want equal rights for the LGBT community, and the “melting pot” mentality is not accepted or taken for what it should be: a nation of people working together to make sure all of the “ingredients” are equally represented instead of becoming a bitter blend to be avoided.
I think the LGBT community in the United States definitely consists of a “melting pot” of different people and personalities. By using the words gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, each word has its own subcategories, such as the “bears” and “fairies” that comprise the gay male category. There are many conflicts within the LGBT community based on all of the differences within it. Despite popular belief, just because two people both identify as gay or lesbian does not mean they share the same values and beliefs. It is because of this that I think the melting pot metaphor is appropriate when referencing the LGBT community. America is called a melting pot because we have so many different nationalities and types of people here, and the LGBT community is just as diverse. I cannot really think of any metaphors that come to mind that would fit better. I think melting pot is simple and reflects all of the differences within the LGBT community.
I agree with Andrew that a gumbo is a better term than melting pot. Everything in the gumbo is unique and an individual. But when you put everyone together in a big pot, it makes something much more yummy. Something that bothered me was the fact that some lesbian groups feel that FtMs should be excluded from their lesbian communities. But if the LGBT community is a big gumbo, shouldn't FtMs be accepted into these groups, even if they are seen as "Allies"? What about bi-sexuals? Aren't they allies of gays and lesbians? The LGBT community has been discriminated against for so long, it's hard to believe that they would discriminate against a different part of the LGBT community. Should there be some kind a sympathy?
I’ve always felt the metaphor that the United States is a “melting pot” of culture diversity to be rather oxymoronic. I think that the “melting pot” idea promotes the ignorance of diversity by supporting uniformity. Always advocating the celebration of diversity, I feel as though we could have chosen something much better than a melting pot to describe the awesomeness of our multicultural nation. Personally I like the idea that the United States is a bowl of jambalaya, or pasta salad. Something with a lot of a color and variety. The queer community is obviously a bowl of jambalaya/pasta salad. We have so many different gender and sexual identities that we have trouble representing them all
I feel like the LGBT community can also be considered as a melting pot, because like the United States, it also consists of various categories. A melting pot would be a very appropriate name, but names like a bowl of gumbo or salad as Andrew said are also acceptable. Something that I was aware of was that bisexuality wasn’t really accepted in the lesbian and gay communities, but never understood why. But from reading this chapter I have learned that bisexuality was not seen as true gayness and was just seen as a phase. I never knew what an intersexual was, maybe because it is the newest addition to the LGBT community. Also by reading chapter 7, I learned that an intersexual is a person that in the past was labeled a hermaphrodite, but don’t understand why they would they would fall into the gay category because of their legit reason. Another thing that I do not understand is why Q is added to LGBT when it clearly pertains to all of the categories.
As Brittany said I too agree with the term "melting pot" as a depiction of what the LGBT community is. When I think of what a melting pot is, a group of different kinds of individuals with different kinds of ideas come to mind. Is that not what the LGBT community is. I think a melting pot is a positive thing. Each title under the LGBT acronym stands for a different thing. Gays- men who like men. Lesbians- women who like women. Trans- those who consider themselves to be a different gender. And Bi-Sexuals- those who are attracted to two sexes. To me that is all a world in its own and a diverse one at that. All different types of people in a community or culture together. Other names like jambalaya and pasta salad are also good descriptions but I don't think that melting pot is a bad name for it.
I agree with Andrew and Dane, that the “melting pot” analogy isn’t legit. There is definitely a more accurate term out there to describe America. I absolutely love Andrew’s gumbo metaphor. The idea that different individuals within different communities come together, makes something much greater than that of a “melting pot.” I must agree with Dane; to me the “melting pot” term equates uniformity and conformity; which is far from what America, so-called, stands for. We are indeed a gumbo of cultural diversity. In which everyone brings some value to the table. No one is more or less important than the other. For without one, our gumbo wouldn’t be so damned good.
I definitely agree with everyone who said that the word "melting pot" is too uniform. Melting pot to me seems like everyone comes together and gets along and is united. Clearly, from these past chapters we can see that there are many groups within the LGBT community that don't like each other. To me the word "queer" fits perfectly for the LGBT community. Queer is defined as something different from the "norm" and that's what LGBT is. Trying to add all the other letters, I, A..and so on gets confusing. You are always going to leave someone out because there are so many different people under the LGBT banner. Using the word queer unites homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, and anyone else who is not heterosexual. I know like Miranda said, some people are weary of using the word queer, but I think it best describes homosexuals.
Well, like most communities, they are made up of many different people, like the book says, such as different nationalities and identities. Not only that, but also different races, genders, sexes, and statuses. I feel that the queer or LGBT community is a melting pot because it has all of these different kinds of people stated above. However, I feel the name “LGBT community” doesn’t make it a “melting pot” sort a speak because it limits and gives pacific labels to certain people. The term queer is also not a good term to use because people identify as “queer.” The rainbow is a good symbol or term to describe the LGBT community since it is a spectrum of different colors.
I also agree with Miranda. I like "queer" to describe the entire non-hetero community. I don't feel that it has a negative connotation. Scratch that, it may have one, but I don't feel that it should. Everyone is different, and though America (especially the south) seems to encourage uniformity in most situations, being different is a good thing. It is so rare to go against societal norms that I think members of the LGBT community should band together and embrace their differences. To me, queer isn't offensive, it's just stating that we're a little different, that we love each other for our differences and not despite them. Queer is a banner under which we can unite, and as campy as it sounds, there is always strength in numbers. As we rid ourselves of the divisions in our community, we can all see that we are working for a common goal.
The term melting pot, to me, defines something on the total opposite end of understanding that I am not quite able to get my hands on. Sure, I do understand the term: everyone in America has just mixed ethnicities, cultures, whatever it may be that will cause us all to co-exist, but I do not feel as though the LGBT community would be considered a melting pot either. I agree a lot with Miranda Moore’s post, because a letter cannot crucially define a person, much less a group of people. It is hard to have to put a metaphor on a group’s experiences and preferences. I do not prefer to say that I am growing up in the melting pot of the United States, and I could imagine someone else saying they are part of the “gay melting pot”. I think that, instead of beating around the bush, saying the word queer, homosexual community, and anything along those lines would be less offending to more than one group of individuals.
It is understandable how the queer or LGBT community in the United States could be considered a melting pot. After all, there are so many identities regarding sexuality that I believe the only plausible solution is to view them all as one blended identity: queer. Personally, I think calling the queer community a “melting pot” is very appropriate and accurate; much more appropriate and accurate than calling the United States a “melting pot.” I have never been a big fan of dividing and separating the queer community. People (straights AND queers) are so bent up on identifying and color-coding other people. For instance, originally, the “queer community” was just L and G. Then B was reluctantly added. Then T even more so reluctantly. And it didn’t stop there. Then a Q was thrown in there for Queer (which seems repetitive to me), or Questioning, depending on who you talk to. Then of course the I for Intersex, and the A for Allies. Frankly, it’s just too much. I usually just try to avoid all of it, and just go for Queer. To me, Queer encompasses everybody who’s not straight—which I truly believe is actually a much higher percentage than the straights. This is why I think the term “melting pot” for the queer community is quite appropriate. Why not just simplify it, melt all the different sexualities together and come out with something that fits all of us: Queer.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I realize that there are still some members of the queer community, as well as our allies, who are not big fans of the Q word. My mother, someone who has always undoubtedly supported gay rights, and who is also staunchly politically correct, was horrified the first time she heard me say queer. In her mind, queer is an incredibly offensive term. I also know plenty of people my own age who don’t like the word queer, opting for lesbian or bi or gay. But I think doing so complicates something that’s already incredibly complicated. There are so many facets of sexuality that it is impossible to go with LGBTQIA without somehow leaving someone out. Dividing the queer community will only prove to be problematic.
The description of America as a “melting pot” has always disturbed/confused me. The image implies that you combine all these ingredients and in the end product is this homogenous whole. The process reminds me of making some kind of alloyed metal. The imagery suggests that people come in different shapes, sizes, and colors but eventually everyone becomes indiscernible. I would much prefer to think of America (and really all cultures) as a bowl of gumbo or pasta salad or as a group of pizza toppings (my apologies, but my life is fairly food-centered). To me these images give the appearance of a lot of different ingredients that enhance the whole. Everyone has something valuable to contribute to the entire pot or pie. No one ingredient is more important that the others; you can’t have (supreme) pizza without pepperoni and peppers and you can’t have gumbo without sausage and chicken. This kind of thought process negates the need for homogeneity which is the root of many intergroup struggles in society.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a “melting pot” is a nice sentiment but not an accurate description of what is really going on. I agree with Miranda in that the LGBT community has been divided over and over and over again, and this division does make it difficult to place the focus on the group as a whole instead of each individual subgroup. It’s the same with any group wanting civil right: instead of having women’s rights we have lesbian groups, straight groups, religious groups, white groups, colored groups, rich groups, poor groups, etc. Having a “melting pot” in terms of working together to obtain natural deserved rights would be appropriate, though like Andrew said, we don’t want to become monotonous and globalized. Keeping cultures among different groups does not interfere from working together and would benefit everyone involved. It’s not only gays, lesbians, transgenders, transsexuals, bisexuals, etc. that want equal rights for the LGBT community, and the “melting pot” mentality is not accepted or taken for what it should be: a nation of people working together to make sure all of the “ingredients” are equally represented instead of becoming a bitter blend to be avoided.
ReplyDeleteI think the LGBT community in the United States definitely consists of a “melting pot” of different people and personalities. By using the words gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, each word has its own subcategories, such as the “bears” and “fairies” that comprise the gay male category. There are many conflicts within the LGBT community based on all of the differences within it. Despite popular belief, just because two people both identify as gay or lesbian does not mean they share the same values and beliefs. It is because of this that I think the melting pot metaphor is appropriate when referencing the LGBT community. America is called a melting pot because we have so many different nationalities and types of people here, and the LGBT community is just as diverse. I cannot really think of any metaphors that come to mind that would fit better. I think melting pot is simple and reflects all of the differences within the LGBT community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew that a gumbo is a better term than melting pot. Everything in the gumbo is unique and an individual. But when you put everyone together in a big pot, it makes something much more yummy. Something that bothered me was the fact that some lesbian groups feel that FtMs should be excluded from their lesbian communities. But if the LGBT community is a big gumbo, shouldn't FtMs be accepted into these groups, even if they are seen as "Allies"? What about bi-sexuals? Aren't they allies of gays and lesbians? The LGBT community has been discriminated against for so long, it's hard to believe that they would discriminate against a different part of the LGBT community. Should there be some kind a sympathy?
ReplyDeleteI’ve always felt the metaphor that the United States is a “melting pot” of culture diversity to be rather oxymoronic. I think that the “melting pot” idea promotes the ignorance of diversity by supporting uniformity. Always advocating the celebration of diversity, I feel as though we could have chosen something much better than a melting pot to describe the awesomeness of our multicultural nation. Personally I like the idea that the United States is a bowl of jambalaya, or pasta salad. Something with a lot of a color and variety. The queer community is obviously a bowl of jambalaya/pasta salad. We have so many different gender and sexual identities that we have trouble representing them all
ReplyDeleteI feel like the LGBT community can also be considered as a melting pot, because like the United States, it also consists of various categories. A melting pot would be a very appropriate name, but names like a bowl of gumbo or salad as Andrew said are also acceptable. Something that I was aware of was that bisexuality wasn’t really accepted in the lesbian and gay communities, but never understood why. But from reading this chapter I have learned that bisexuality was not seen as true gayness and was just seen as a phase. I never knew what an intersexual was, maybe because it is the newest addition to the LGBT community. Also by reading chapter 7, I learned that an intersexual is a person that in the past was labeled a hermaphrodite, but don’t understand why they would they would fall into the gay category because of their legit reason. Another thing that I do not understand is why Q is added to LGBT when it clearly pertains to all of the categories.
ReplyDeleteAs Brittany said I too agree with the term "melting pot" as a depiction of what the LGBT community is. When I think of what a melting pot is, a group of different kinds of individuals with different kinds of ideas come to mind. Is that not what the LGBT community is. I think a melting pot is a positive thing. Each title under the LGBT acronym stands for a different thing. Gays- men who like men. Lesbians- women who like women. Trans- those who consider themselves to be a different gender. And Bi-Sexuals- those who are attracted to two sexes. To me that is all a world in its own and a diverse one at that. All different types of people in a community or culture together. Other names like jambalaya and pasta salad are also good descriptions but I don't think that melting pot is a bad name for it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew and Dane, that the “melting pot” analogy isn’t legit. There is definitely a more accurate term out there to describe America. I absolutely love Andrew’s gumbo metaphor. The idea that different individuals within different communities come together, makes something much greater than that of a “melting pot.” I must agree with Dane; to me the “melting pot” term equates uniformity and conformity; which is far from what America, so-called, stands for. We are indeed a gumbo of cultural diversity. In which everyone brings some value to the table. No one is more or less important than the other. For without one, our gumbo wouldn’t be so damned good.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with everyone who said that the word "melting pot" is too uniform. Melting pot to me seems like everyone comes together and gets along and is united. Clearly, from these past chapters we can see that there are many groups within the LGBT community that don't like each other. To me the word "queer" fits perfectly for the LGBT community. Queer is defined as something different from the "norm" and that's what LGBT is. Trying to add all the other letters, I, A..and so on gets confusing. You are always going to leave someone out because there are so many different people under the LGBT banner. Using the word queer unites homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, and anyone else who is not heterosexual. I know like Miranda said, some people are weary of using the word queer, but I think it best describes homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteWell, like most communities, they are made up of many different people, like the book says, such as different nationalities and identities. Not only that, but also different races, genders, sexes, and statuses. I feel that the queer or LGBT community is a melting pot because it has all of these different kinds of people stated above. However, I feel the name “LGBT community” doesn’t make it a “melting pot” sort a speak because it limits and gives pacific labels to certain people. The term queer is also not a good term to use because people identify as “queer.” The rainbow is a good symbol or term to describe the LGBT community since it is a spectrum of different colors.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Miranda. I like "queer" to describe the entire non-hetero community. I don't feel that it has a negative connotation. Scratch that, it may have one, but I don't feel that it should. Everyone is different, and though America (especially the south) seems to encourage uniformity in most situations, being different is a good thing. It is so rare to go against societal norms that I think members of the LGBT community should band together and embrace their differences. To me, queer isn't offensive, it's just stating that we're a little different, that we love each other for our differences and not despite them. Queer is a banner under which we can unite, and as campy as it sounds, there is always strength in numbers. As we rid ourselves of the divisions in our community, we can all see that we are working for a common goal.
ReplyDeleteThe term melting pot, to me, defines something on the total opposite end of understanding that I am not quite able to get my hands on. Sure, I do understand the term: everyone in America has just mixed ethnicities, cultures, whatever it may be that will cause us all to co-exist, but I do not feel as though the LGBT community would be considered a melting pot either. I agree a lot with Miranda Moore’s post, because a letter cannot crucially define a person, much less a group of people. It is hard to have to put a metaphor on a group’s experiences and preferences. I do not prefer to say that I am growing up in the melting pot of the United States, and I could imagine someone else saying they are part of the “gay melting pot”. I think that, instead of beating around the bush, saying the word queer, homosexual community, and anything along those lines would be less offending to more than one group of individuals.
ReplyDelete