A Single Conversation
December 12, 2014 1:47 PM Subscribe
Doorstep visits change attitudes on gay marriage. 'A single conversation with a gay or lesbian door-to-door canvasser had the ability to change attitudes on same-sex marriage in neighborhoods that overwhelmingly opposed such unions, according to new research. In a study conducted in Los Angeles County and published Thursday in the journal Science, researchers found that when openly gay canvassers lobbied a household resident about same-sex marriage, the resident was more likely to form a lasting and favorable opinion of gay marriage than if the canvasser was heterosexual.'
'The doorstep conversations also had a measurable “spillover effect,” in which some household residents who did not speak with the gay canvasser also formed a positive opinion of gay marriage, researchers said.'
Harvey Milk famously said: “Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all. And once you do, you will feel so much better”
This effect was observed for those neighborhoods that voted in the greatest numbers for Proposition 8.
'The experiment was modeled after public outreach campaigns conducted by the Los Angeles LGBT Center in voting precincts that overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8, the 2008 state ballot measure that repealed same-sex marriage.
The finding is unusual in that many previous studies have found that active canvassing or political advertising do little to alter firmly held opinions. In fact, researchers were so skeptical of their results the first time that they re-ran the experiment and duplicated their initial results.'
'The doorstep conversations also had a measurable “spillover effect,” in which some household residents who did not speak with the gay canvasser also formed a positive opinion of gay marriage, researchers said.'
Harvey Milk famously said: “Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all. And once you do, you will feel so much better”
This effect was observed for those neighborhoods that voted in the greatest numbers for Proposition 8.
'The experiment was modeled after public outreach campaigns conducted by the Los Angeles LGBT Center in voting precincts that overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8, the 2008 state ballot measure that repealed same-sex marriage.
The finding is unusual in that many previous studies have found that active canvassing or political advertising do little to alter firmly held opinions. In fact, researchers were so skeptical of their results the first time that they re-ran the experiment and duplicated their initial results.'
It's awesome that someone has quantified in a verifiable way that having even casual contact with someone who identifies as gay can change their political attitudes (in this already swiftly-evolving climate, something which also may not have been taken into account), but political attitudes and legal acknowledgement are not the same as cultural acceptance, and that remains very hard to see happening.
I'm younger than you, I work in an offshoot of theater, that nevertheless puts me in contact with a lot of people whose backgrounds I do not know and who's reactions I cannot predict. I just married my wife. Now that we're official and I can't hide behind the word fiance anymore when negotiating chit chat, I'm faced with the decision you describe here:
But coming out is a daily set of decisions -- do I say anything to this person who said something that shows they assume I'm straight?
whenever family life comes up at work in a client facing meeting and I have to make the choice to risk a negative reaction in order to participate. When I'm bold and I make the leap I'm always pleasantly surprised by how much they do-not-give-a-shit. My entire wedding planning process not once did anyone vendor we reached out to for quotes or information care or act surprised about our same sex couple status. Granted I live in NYC and work in an offshoot of the arts and many many people have it much worse than I do. But I can tell that attitudes are changing, because largely when I worry about a negative reaction and take the plunge, I am wrong and there is no negative reaction. NONE of this would be happening if people like you who came before me didn't have the courage to live honestly and openly. You may not always feel it happening, but it is and I am so grateful to everyone who came before me and had it worse than me and lived their lives openly and honestly, despite the negative reactions.
posted by edbles at 3:36 PM on December 12, 2014 [11 favorites]
I'm younger than you, I work in an offshoot of theater, that nevertheless puts me in contact with a lot of people whose backgrounds I do not know and who's reactions I cannot predict. I just married my wife. Now that we're official and I can't hide behind the word fiance anymore when negotiating chit chat, I'm faced with the decision you describe here:
But coming out is a daily set of decisions -- do I say anything to this person who said something that shows they assume I'm straight?
whenever family life comes up at work in a client facing meeting and I have to make the choice to risk a negative reaction in order to participate. When I'm bold and I make the leap I'm always pleasantly surprised by how much they do-not-give-a-shit. My entire wedding planning process not once did anyone vendor we reached out to for quotes or information care or act surprised about our same sex couple status. Granted I live in NYC and work in an offshoot of the arts and many many people have it much worse than I do. But I can tell that attitudes are changing, because largely when I worry about a negative reaction and take the plunge, I am wrong and there is no negative reaction. NONE of this would be happening if people like you who came before me didn't have the courage to live honestly and openly. You may not always feel it happening, but it is and I am so grateful to everyone who came before me and had it worse than me and lived their lives openly and honestly, despite the negative reactions.
posted by edbles at 3:36 PM on December 12, 2014 [11 favorites]
This study did not have anything to do with whether the canvassers were homosexual or heterosexual. What it had to do with was the script that canvassers were given to present and how the residents they visited perceived the interaction they were having.
I get your point, but that is irrelevant to judging whether or not the study had anything to do with the canvasser's sexual orientation, since it was an experiment, where by definition things are manipulated and controlled to create effects. It is a reasonable research design to use a proxy as something else, and that is what Lacour did here.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:59 PM on December 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I get your point, but that is irrelevant to judging whether or not the study had anything to do with the canvasser's sexual orientation, since it was an experiment, where by definition things are manipulated and controlled to create effects. It is a reasonable research design to use a proxy as something else, and that is what Lacour did here.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:59 PM on December 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well, I understand that, but that is not how this study is represented either in the LA Times reporting on the subject or in the summary of the Science article (the full article about which I cannot see because paywall).
It's presented as something entirely else. Either this is sloppy summarizing of the study that I cannot actually read, or the researcher made bad assumptions about what exactly was being researched and drew conclusions which extend beyond the actual results.
I don't really care either way. I appreciate what this research is showing. But it is not all as rosy as the author of the original study wants to present it, and I stand by everything I have said.
posted by hippybear at 4:26 PM on December 12, 2014
It's presented as something entirely else. Either this is sloppy summarizing of the study that I cannot actually read, or the researcher made bad assumptions about what exactly was being researched and drew conclusions which extend beyond the actual results.
I don't really care either way. I appreciate what this research is showing. But it is not all as rosy as the author of the original study wants to present it, and I stand by everything I have said.
posted by hippybear at 4:26 PM on December 12, 2014
But it is not all as rosy as the author of the original study wants to present it
How so? the effects they are seeing are huge and persistent. This is exceedingly rare in field experiments. You seem to be saying that there is no correlation between presenting oneself as gay and actual sexual orientation--or at least that is the only tenable assumption for the conclusions that you are reaching. Even if being outwardly/steretypically homosexual or heterosexual is weakly correlated with sexual orientation, its reasonable to use that as an instrumental variable for sexual orientation.
You seem to be saying that, since there are many varieties of gay people, ergo, no inference can be made about having different treatments of gay/straight in a canvassing experiment. But that's not true at all--gay and straight just need different means and distributions, which they do.
Sure, the people being canvassed did not know for sure if the canvasser was gay or straight, but that is irrelevant to inferential claims.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:38 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
How so? the effects they are seeing are huge and persistent. This is exceedingly rare in field experiments. You seem to be saying that there is no correlation between presenting oneself as gay and actual sexual orientation--or at least that is the only tenable assumption for the conclusions that you are reaching. Even if being outwardly/steretypically homosexual or heterosexual is weakly correlated with sexual orientation, its reasonable to use that as an instrumental variable for sexual orientation.
You seem to be saying that, since there are many varieties of gay people, ergo, no inference can be made about having different treatments of gay/straight in a canvassing experiment. But that's not true at all--gay and straight just need different means and distributions, which they do.
Sure, the people being canvassed did not know for sure if the canvasser was gay or straight, but that is irrelevant to inferential claims.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:38 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Hippybear, the checkout lady's reaction is not only not your problem, but it's also beyond your judgment. Isn't it possible that she's embarrassed about making an assumption about a regular customer as opposed to homophobic? Try treating her just like you used to and see what happens. Joke with her if that's what you used to do. If you still get nothing but coldness, ask her what's wrong since you used to have such a cordial relationship. At best, you'll get an explanation or a chance at dialog. At worst...what?
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:45 PM on December 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:45 PM on December 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
You seem to be saying that there is no correlation between presenting oneself as gay and actual sexual orientation--or at least that is the only tenable assumption for the conclusions that you are reaching. Even if being outwardly/steretypically homosexual or heterosexual is weakly correlated with sexual orientation, its reasonable to use that as an instrumental variable for sexual orientation.
You seem to be saying that, since there are many varieties of gay people, ergo, no inference can be made about having different treatments of gay/straight in a canvassing experiment.
No, what I am saying is, linking this IMO rather flawed study's results to Milk's statements about living as an out gay person is disingenuous, because what Milk is saying is that it's important for LGBT people to be honest about who they are in their daily lives on a casual basis, and there is nothing "daily life" or "casual" about being a political canvasser sent into a hostile neighborhood with a script for a 20 minute conversation.
It's an awesome study, and I don't refute the claims about what it means about political attitudes, but as far as cultural assimilation and social acceptance goes, it basically says nothing.
posted by hippybear at 4:46 PM on December 12, 2014
You seem to be saying that, since there are many varieties of gay people, ergo, no inference can be made about having different treatments of gay/straight in a canvassing experiment.
No, what I am saying is, linking this IMO rather flawed study's results to Milk's statements about living as an out gay person is disingenuous, because what Milk is saying is that it's important for LGBT people to be honest about who they are in their daily lives on a casual basis, and there is nothing "daily life" or "casual" about being a political canvasser sent into a hostile neighborhood with a script for a 20 minute conversation.
It's an awesome study, and I don't refute the claims about what it means about political attitudes, but as far as cultural assimilation and social acceptance goes, it basically says nothing.
posted by hippybear at 4:46 PM on December 12, 2014
I think the last sentence of the abstract to which I linked in the FPP is interesting:
"Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change."
While they discussed gay/straight throughout, in this last sentence they appear to generalize to "minorities". The term minorities is pretty broad, and they don't further qualify it as f.ex. sexual, ethnic, racial or religious etc. minorities.
I wonder how valid extrapolating the results from this study about gay/straight canvassers would be to other minority canvassers - f.ex. racial, such as African-American. If such an extrapolation is valid, then the canvassing approach could be a valuable tool for social change in race relations. The authors of the study appear to be implying such an extrapolation, but that strikes me as a pretty bold step, which I'm not sure is justified by this study alone.
There is no question that the relatively rapid acceptance of gay marriage is one of the very few social changes that have moved in the direction favored by liberals in the last decade. Therefore there has been an enormous interest in assessing whether the strategies used to gain acceptance for gay marriage can be adapted to social change along other dimensions, such as race relations.
I'd like to think that it's possible, but I fear this is an enormously complicated issue and it would be dangerous to extrapolate as the authors appear to be doing.
For example, was the "reveal" a vital part of this effect? As in:
"The face-to-face meetings lasted roughly 20 minutes, according to researchers. Gay marriage canvassers would follow a specific script in which they asked residents to name the benefits of marriage. If the canvasser was gay, they would then inform the resident and say they wanted to experience the same benefits. Straight canvassers on the other hand said they were hoping that a close relative who was gay could enjoy the benefits of marriage." [emph. mine, VS]
In other words, they'd only reveal their orientation after their initial pitch/set up. Was that timing important to the final effect? If yes, then that option would be harder for certain visible minorities - after all, a black person cannot suddenly "reveal" that they are black, as that is apparent from the first moments of the encounter.
posted by VikingSword at 4:47 PM on December 12, 2014
"Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change."
While they discussed gay/straight throughout, in this last sentence they appear to generalize to "minorities". The term minorities is pretty broad, and they don't further qualify it as f.ex. sexual, ethnic, racial or religious etc. minorities.
I wonder how valid extrapolating the results from this study about gay/straight canvassers would be to other minority canvassers - f.ex. racial, such as African-American. If such an extrapolation is valid, then the canvassing approach could be a valuable tool for social change in race relations. The authors of the study appear to be implying such an extrapolation, but that strikes me as a pretty bold step, which I'm not sure is justified by this study alone.
There is no question that the relatively rapid acceptance of gay marriage is one of the very few social changes that have moved in the direction favored by liberals in the last decade. Therefore there has been an enormous interest in assessing whether the strategies used to gain acceptance for gay marriage can be adapted to social change along other dimensions, such as race relations.
I'd like to think that it's possible, but I fear this is an enormously complicated issue and it would be dangerous to extrapolate as the authors appear to be doing.
For example, was the "reveal" a vital part of this effect? As in:
"The face-to-face meetings lasted roughly 20 minutes, according to researchers. Gay marriage canvassers would follow a specific script in which they asked residents to name the benefits of marriage. If the canvasser was gay, they would then inform the resident and say they wanted to experience the same benefits. Straight canvassers on the other hand said they were hoping that a close relative who was gay could enjoy the benefits of marriage." [emph. mine, VS]
In other words, they'd only reveal their orientation after their initial pitch/set up. Was that timing important to the final effect? If yes, then that option would be harder for certain visible minorities - after all, a black person cannot suddenly "reveal" that they are black, as that is apparent from the first moments of the encounter.
posted by VikingSword at 4:47 PM on December 12, 2014
Well it does say that brief 20 minute conversations with gay people can induce significant and persistent effects in peoples attitudes toward gays, so I guess we disagree on what 'nothing' means.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:48 PM on December 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:48 PM on December 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
No, what I am saying is, linking this IMO rather flawed study's results to Milk's statements about living as an out gay person is disingenuous, because what Milk is saying is that it's important for LGBT people to be honest about who they are in their daily lives on a casual basis, and there is nothing "daily life" or "casual" about being a political canvasser sent into a hostile neighborhood with a script for a 20 minute conversation.
But aren't the researchers themselves making that claim - or extrapolation? Again, the last sentence of that abstract:
"Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change."
The way I read it is that this is something that is meant to apply to everyday life, not just to professional canvassers intent on pushing a particular program. And therefore, it is fitting with Milk's observation, which let us note, makes that explicit too:
"Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all."
The idea being that change happens through personal contact of gay people in their everyday social interactions with straight people.
posted by VikingSword at 4:52 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
But aren't the researchers themselves making that claim - or extrapolation? Again, the last sentence of that abstract:
"Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change."
The way I read it is that this is something that is meant to apply to everyday life, not just to professional canvassers intent on pushing a particular program. And therefore, it is fitting with Milk's observation, which let us note, makes that explicit too:
"Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all."
The idea being that change happens through personal contact of gay people in their everyday social interactions with straight people.
posted by VikingSword at 4:52 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Cure People Of Homophobia With This One Weird Trick!
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 PM on December 12, 2014
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 PM on December 12, 2014
Speaking from personal experience, all I can say is the study confirms what I've seen over and over in my own life. Despite being a fairly stereotypical educated lefty type I have a lot of friends who are on the right end of the political spectrum, not just conservatives but full blown racists, sexists, fascists, people like this. The one common denominator is I have noticed is that personal interaction with an outgroup is the singular most common motivator in belief changes among such people.
I'm pretty drunk so maybe I'm not articulating this well but: whether it's some upper-class WASP type who didn't like the gays until his brother married a dude, or an ex-marine living in a trailer park who never befriended a black person before his tour of duty, it is personal interaction that matters.
I honestly don't think that hardly any person's weltanshauung has ever been changed except by a forced (or revelatory/unexpected) inclusion of an outgroup member into their Dunbar number. On one side of my family, they hated gays until Uncle Billy came out and married his boyfriend. It took a few years but now they are invited to all the gatherings and pretty much everybody is on board. In 2008, I asked one of my hillbilly cousins who he voted for. This white guy was fairly racist, but also not afraid to say what he thought, especially to me, and he replied "Yeeeaah, I voted for that nigga." I mean, he said the n-word and that's bad, right? And yet that's one more Obama voter.
You can also see this in the Vicco, Kentucky bit on the Colbert Report. Especially, stained shirt guy at the end. Look at how this guy struggles, he obviously does not have any animosity towards his gay mayor/barber, yet his religion is telling him he must. But this gay mayor is in this guy's tribe, so he wants to accept him, will rationalize any way he can to accept him. This is a basic fact of human experience IMO.
To bring it home: People empathize with their in-group. You'll never convince people to love the out-group. But you might diversify their in-group a little, but you can't do that with in-group people advocating on the out-group's behalf, you need the out-group to confront directly and say "Hi, I'm basically like you! Would you mind not stomping on my neck because we both want basically the same things out of life." It won't always work but it's the only strategy I've ever seen work at all in my life.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 8:58 PM on December 12, 2014 [8 favorites]
I'm pretty drunk so maybe I'm not articulating this well but: whether it's some upper-class WASP type who didn't like the gays until his brother married a dude, or an ex-marine living in a trailer park who never befriended a black person before his tour of duty, it is personal interaction that matters.
I honestly don't think that hardly any person's weltanshauung has ever been changed except by a forced (or revelatory/unexpected) inclusion of an outgroup member into their Dunbar number. On one side of my family, they hated gays until Uncle Billy came out and married his boyfriend. It took a few years but now they are invited to all the gatherings and pretty much everybody is on board. In 2008, I asked one of my hillbilly cousins who he voted for. This white guy was fairly racist, but also not afraid to say what he thought, especially to me, and he replied "Yeeeaah, I voted for that nigga." I mean, he said the n-word and that's bad, right? And yet that's one more Obama voter.
You can also see this in the Vicco, Kentucky bit on the Colbert Report. Especially, stained shirt guy at the end. Look at how this guy struggles, he obviously does not have any animosity towards his gay mayor/barber, yet his religion is telling him he must. But this gay mayor is in this guy's tribe, so he wants to accept him, will rationalize any way he can to accept him. This is a basic fact of human experience IMO.
To bring it home: People empathize with their in-group. You'll never convince people to love the out-group. But you might diversify their in-group a little, but you can't do that with in-group people advocating on the out-group's behalf, you need the out-group to confront directly and say "Hi, I'm basically like you! Would you mind not stomping on my neck because we both want basically the same things out of life." It won't always work but it's the only strategy I've ever seen work at all in my life.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 8:58 PM on December 12, 2014 [8 favorites]
Another account of the study, with quotes from the authors:
As gay marriage gains voter acceptance, study illuminates a possible reason
""The change was equivalent to transforming a Midwesterner into a New Englander on the issue of gay marriage," quipped Green, an authority on research methods in the social sciences.
Within three weeks, however, conventional wisdom kicked in: Support for gay marriage among the voters who had been approached by straight canvassers retreated to where it had originally been; any effect of the conversation had been wiped out. Among voters who had been approached by gay canvassers, however, the attitude shift persisted. In fact, support for gay marriage among that group grew even further when the Supreme Court handed down its decision -- jumping an additional seven percentage points. The researchers also found that among these voters' the support remained a year later.
Green, a 27-year veteran researcher and author of four books and more than 100 studies, couldn't believe what LaCour had found. So he advised him to rerun the experiment. The second round replicated the original results.
"Previously, I've been really pessimistic about the prospect of changing someone's views, and that kind of pessimism suffuses much of the research on attitude change," Green said. "But the results of our study convinced me that enduring change is possible. They're eye-popping."
Housemates of voters who spoke to straight canvassers didn't change their attitudes on gay marriage. But the housemates of voters who had spoken with the gay canvassers registered a three percentage-point increase, and their support for gay marriage continued to rise throughout the following year, especially after the decision.
"This suggested to us that views were being reinforced by conversations going on in the household," Green said."
It also looks like my question about extrapolation is partially addressed here:
"The issue LaCour and Green were studying was Americans' support for gay marriage, but LaCour is in the process of replicating the results with another hot-button issue, abortion rights. He hopes to eventually test whether a similar approach could shift people's attitudes toward undocumented immigrants."
posted by VikingSword at 9:10 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
As gay marriage gains voter acceptance, study illuminates a possible reason
""The change was equivalent to transforming a Midwesterner into a New Englander on the issue of gay marriage," quipped Green, an authority on research methods in the social sciences.
Within three weeks, however, conventional wisdom kicked in: Support for gay marriage among the voters who had been approached by straight canvassers retreated to where it had originally been; any effect of the conversation had been wiped out. Among voters who had been approached by gay canvassers, however, the attitude shift persisted. In fact, support for gay marriage among that group grew even further when the Supreme Court handed down its decision -- jumping an additional seven percentage points. The researchers also found that among these voters' the support remained a year later.
Green, a 27-year veteran researcher and author of four books and more than 100 studies, couldn't believe what LaCour had found. So he advised him to rerun the experiment. The second round replicated the original results.
"Previously, I've been really pessimistic about the prospect of changing someone's views, and that kind of pessimism suffuses much of the research on attitude change," Green said. "But the results of our study convinced me that enduring change is possible. They're eye-popping."
Housemates of voters who spoke to straight canvassers didn't change their attitudes on gay marriage. But the housemates of voters who had spoken with the gay canvassers registered a three percentage-point increase, and their support for gay marriage continued to rise throughout the following year, especially after the decision.
"This suggested to us that views were being reinforced by conversations going on in the household," Green said."
It also looks like my question about extrapolation is partially addressed here:
"The issue LaCour and Green were studying was Americans' support for gay marriage, but LaCour is in the process of replicating the results with another hot-button issue, abortion rights. He hopes to eventually test whether a similar approach could shift people's attitudes toward undocumented immigrants."
posted by VikingSword at 9:10 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Green, an authority on research methods in the social sciences.
This is an understatement. Don Green is simply a giant in the field.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:25 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is an understatement. Don Green is simply a giant in the field.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:25 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
In the past couple of weeks since then, whenever she's been at the register, my interactions with her have changed. MARKEDLY. She's not friendly anymore. It's all business, no pleasantries.
I am a supermarket cashier and if this interaction happened to me I would a) be mortified about having made a stupid heteronormative assumption and b) assume that your response as described was meant as chastisement for same, intended to make me feel stupid and/or ashamed.
So I would apologise to you (which it sounds like she didn't), and then, most likely, all our future interactions would be cordially professional, but not overly warm - because I would feel embarrassed, as well as worried that you were angry and that I might make it worse by further personal chit-chat of any sort.
I'm not saying homophobia isn't a possibility, but I don't think it's the only possible explanation for her change in demeanour.
posted by lwb at 10:24 PM on December 12, 2014 [9 favorites]
I am a supermarket cashier and if this interaction happened to me I would a) be mortified about having made a stupid heteronormative assumption and b) assume that your response as described was meant as chastisement for same, intended to make me feel stupid and/or ashamed.
So I would apologise to you (which it sounds like she didn't), and then, most likely, all our future interactions would be cordially professional, but not overly warm - because I would feel embarrassed, as well as worried that you were angry and that I might make it worse by further personal chit-chat of any sort.
I'm not saying homophobia isn't a possibility, but I don't think it's the only possible explanation for her change in demeanour.
posted by lwb at 10:24 PM on December 12, 2014 [9 favorites]
lwb: your input is a major boost for me and has me feeling very differently about that interaction. I hope maybe I can patch things up with this woman, because she's been a sparkling part of my life for many years, and now that the sparkle is gone, I feel my life is lessened.
Do you have any suggestions about how I can approach her in a way that would make her warm up to me again? Because that would be exactly what I want to have happen.
posted by hippybear at 12:16 AM on December 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
Do you have any suggestions about how I can approach her in a way that would make her warm up to me again? Because that would be exactly what I want to have happen.
posted by hippybear at 12:16 AM on December 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
Maybe tell her that dinner was wonderful? Say my partner loved the wine? Just get it out in the open. Even if she's a bigot at heart she'll appreciate the honesty.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:04 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:04 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
I've talked to the guy who designed the script for the conversations in this study (well before it was actually a study). A good part of the conversations he described (and showed on video) to me were bringing in his own personal experiences in describing what it felt like for Prop 8 to be passed.
While I am sure there are some actors who could do this effectively, it really helps to have actually lived that experience to do this sort of canvassing. So, hippybear, I get what you're saying, but I think it makes a difference to have actual gay people who can come up with examples of how people have treated them based on their sexual orientation rather than actors who are either making things up or telling other peoples stories.
Another part of his theory in putting together the original canvasses was that part of the reason people voted for Prop 8 in the first place was that they didn't realize that it was discriminatory, and the best way to get people to realize that was by putting in front of them an example of someone who had been discriminated against.
posted by grae at 10:33 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
While I am sure there are some actors who could do this effectively, it really helps to have actually lived that experience to do this sort of canvassing. So, hippybear, I get what you're saying, but I think it makes a difference to have actual gay people who can come up with examples of how people have treated them based on their sexual orientation rather than actors who are either making things up or telling other peoples stories.
Another part of his theory in putting together the original canvasses was that part of the reason people voted for Prop 8 in the first place was that they didn't realize that it was discriminatory, and the best way to get people to realize that was by putting in front of them an example of someone who had been discriminated against.
posted by grae at 10:33 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older How Fun Works (3rd edition, revised) | Why "Marsala"? Because we thought it sounded... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
An "openly gay" door-to-door canvasser?
No, sorry. This study did not have anything to do with whether the canvassers were homosexual or heterosexual. What it had to do with was the script that canvassers were given to present and how the residents they visited perceived the interaction they were having.
I mean, really, this is LA county we're talking about. You could easily hire canvassers (n=22) who are aspiring straight actors willing to play gay for people they will never see again in neighborhoods they have never once visited before. Equally easy would have been for aspiring gay actors to be hired as canvassers (n=21) who use the straight script.
This isn't about whether the person ringing the doorbell is gay. It's about what the person answering the door is told about the person ringing the doorbell during their very limited, presumably never-to-be-repeated interaction.
Harvey Milk's quote is entirely correct. But it's not about political canvassing. It's about living a life which does not hide itself, which lives with the opposite of shame (pride) about the truth of their lives, and which does so in a daily context in which exposure is going to be ongoing, repeated, and casual.
It's awesome that someone has quantified in a verifiable way that having even casual contact with someone who identifies as gay can change their political attitudes (in this already swiftly-evolving climate, something which also may not have been taken into account), but political attitudes and legal acknowledgement are not the same as cultural acceptance, and that remains very hard to see happening.
Just in the last month, I was at the checkout counter at the grocery store only 5 blocks from my house, and was buying a couple of bottles of
champagnesparkling wine, and the woman at the checkout counter made a comment, something about a romantic evening with the wife or some such...I've seen this woman at least once a week for 11 years...
I've been an out gay man since 1990, but I'm not easily identified as gay in daily life, due to my carriage and appearance, and so I decided to take this moment to say something to the effect, "I don't have a wife, I have a male partner whom I've been with for over 20 years, and I'm actually taking this to dinner with a friend who is also gay whose family told him he isn't welcome for Thanksgiving after he came out."
Her eyes widened a bit, and she rang up my order without the usual chit-chat we typically have had over the past 11 years.
In the past couple of weeks since then, whenever she's been at the register, my interactions with her have changed. MARKEDLY. She's not friendly anymore. It's all business, no pleasantries. It hurts me every time I go in to find she's at the only open register, because dammit, this is my home grocery store in my tiny town of 10,000 people, and now there is this woman who seems to hate me for having been honest about my life. What do I do now? Try to be extra charming to win her back over? It's ridiculous that I even have to be thinking these thoughts.
I'm super happy to live in a state where I have legal protection for my relationship in the form of marriage, where I can't be fired because I'm gay (although any employer who has any brains will find alternate reasons to fire a faggot they don't want around)... But coming out is a daily set of decisions -- do I say anything to this person who said something that shows they assume I'm straight?
I fully believe that being out is the right way to live one's life. It's a process I've struggled with for nearly 25 years now. But it's not as simple as sending people out to strangers' houses with a script about a political issue. Being out is a daily field of land mines, and there is no amount of political legislation that is going to change how that woman at the grocery store interacts with me now that I've come out to her. I've had way more positive than negative interactions being an out gay man across the past quarter century, but it's the negative ones that stick. And when I go to the store later, I will probably see her again, and she will be cold toward me, and what do you do with that?
posted by hippybear at 2:38 PM on December 12, 2014 [65 favorites]