There’s a really fascinating post at scatterplot from sociologist Tina Fetner. She reports on research with Bob Andersen just published in the American Journal of Political Science. Their interest was sparked by a sudden shift in Canada and the United States towards more accepting attitudes towards same-sex relationships and lesbians and gays - among people from all ages contrary to the usual stickiness of attitudes formed early in the lifecourse. (Note that the shift was from a smaller base in the US than Canada.) They wondered whether the post-materialist thesis - the idea that when material wealth increases, other issues come to the foreground in such a way as to promote greater tolerance. The new study found:
We compare attitudes in 33 European democracies, plus the U.S. and Canada, and we have two main findings. The first is that that class does matter to attitudes toward homosexuality. Class matters, in that working-class people not only have lower levels of tolerance than professionals and managing classes, but they have very similar attitudes to other working-class people in other countries, regardless of GDP. Or, another way to say that is that the postmaterialist state of rich countries does not necessarily trickle down to working-class people, and neither do the tolerant attitudes that national wealth supposedly ushers in.The second finding is that national economic inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, is a significant predictor of overall levels of attitudes toward homosexuality. In fact, the effect washes out the significance of GDP as a predictor of attitudes in our models. In other words, rich countries that have high inequality are less tolerant than less wealthy countries with lower inequality.
How does inequality disrupt the development of tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality, something seemingly so unrelated to the economy? One idea is that greater equality breeds greater general trust in fellow human beings. Under conditions of high inequality, this general trust dissolves and is replaced by a more specific trust in people we know and people who are “like” us. Specific trust is more of an “us vs. them” mentality, allowing for the scapegoating of marginalized groups, such as lesbian and gay people.
Interesting.
Back in the mid-90s, a Malaysian professional informed me that as soon as the per capita income in Malaysia exceeded $US5000, the influence of Islamic fundamentalism would decline.
I used to be extremely accepting of gay male relationships (and always have been of lesbian relationships, and still am, so long as I’m not subjected to misyandrist bull-shit), but unfortunately one or two rather nasty experiences with predatory gays have put me in a position that I won’t trust them any longer, because they’re incapable of controlling their sexual urges, even when they know the person they’re directing them to is heterosexual. It’s got nothing to do with class. They can’t be trusted to keep their cocks in their pockets.
I know this might set the cat among the pigeons, but I don’t care.
Yes, I think when there is a perception that other people are getting things you aren’t, there is a tendency to spend your time in envious scrutiny of everyone around you.
I have a vivid recollection of a taxi ride late one night where the driver was bemoaning this, that and the other (usually involving people you think should be below you on the pecking order)and then - just to illustrate the point - an Asian woman pulled up at the lights next to us in a very nice Mercedes sports.
Needless to say that really sent the taxi driver off: “That’s my bloody taxes that have paid for that car!” she harrumphed. “Pardon me?” I asked reasonably politely. “It’s all the welfare they get!” she whined. “They CLAIM to be refugees just so they can get the foot in the door, and as soon as they are here, they bring all their other relatives over, they all live together, 20 to a house…”
I cut her off at that point, it being abundantly clear where it was heading. “How do you know she’s on welfare?” I asked, my polite tone starting to slip. “She could be a medical specialist on a work visa or, shock, horror, she might actually have been BORN here and have worked hard like everyone else who owns a Merc. And besides,” (I was really winding up at this point), “there is no way that you could ever afford a Mercedes if you were only on welfare. If that were true, everyone would be driving one!”
At that point she started muttering under her breath and it pretty much killed the conversation for the rest of the (thankfully short) trip. I do remember thinking that in spite of the logical arguments I presented, her attitude would probably never change. She’d done it hard all her life and she was just flat out resentful of everything and everyone.
Incidentally, on the very specific issue of the entitlements of same sex couples, I find it really interesting to throw the welfare argument into the mix when discussing the formalisation of same sex relationships with those who are vehemently against it. Once you point out to them that their taxes are paying relatively more for a same sex couple on income support than a heterosexual couple on income support because they get paid as two individuals rather than as a couple, the argument starts to subtly shift. They think it is very wrong for two people living together as a couple and pooling their resources to be paid individually, rather than collectively (not to mention the fact that it is TEH HOMOSEXUALS benefitting), but when you point out that this wouldn’t happen if same sex relationships were recognised they don’t quite know where to take their argument from there. Recognising same sex relationships legitimises them (boo, hiss), but refusing to do so allows gay people to “rort” the welfare system (boo, hiss). A win, win for those miserable sinners, and we can’t have that…
There are a range of possible causal connections which can be suggested, but which will obviously require further research.
(a) Conditions of more extreme inequality of wealth may be associated with a sharper divide between “information-rich” and “information-poor” and/or differences in educational attainment. Possibly related to this, in countries with a more egalitarian distribution of material wealth, information and/or educational opportunities, the less affluent classes may be more likely to partake of liberal discourses originating in the “enlightened middle class”.
(b) Sharper material inequalities between classes may be associated with ethnic, religious and/or cultural differences between classes, such that adherents of faiths and/or cultures with more conservative attitudes towards sexuality may be concentrated in less affluent classes.
(c) The strength of right-wing political discourses in a society can be expected to be associated both with greater material inequality and with a greater incidence of social conservatism, but this begs the question of how this could be associated in such a way with class differences? Perhaps the answer here is that in recent decades in Western societies it has been the information-rich middle class, rather than the working class, which has had greater access to sources of information and secondary socialisation not controlled by right-wing political actors.
To reiterate, these are conjectural hypotheses which require further research.
Paul @ 2, aside from the fact that you’re making unsustainable generalisations to all gay men from your own experiences (n= 1 or 2), the whole point is about shifts in attitudes among the aggregate, not among individuals who may go in the opposite direction.
I really think you should reflect on the logic that suggests because some As have property B, then all As must have property B. It just doesn’t stack up, as should be very clear.
but unfortunately one or two rather nasty experiences with predatory gays have put me in a position that I won’t trust them any longer, because they’re incapable of controlling …[etc]”
One of the elements of the invisible knapsack of white male privilege: knowing that a f**kup on the part of one of your group won’t be taken as an indication of the immorality, stupidity, lack or self-control, etcetera, of the entire group.
I used to be extremely accepting of
gaymalesrelationships(and always have been oflesbian relationshipsfemales , and still am, so long as I’m not subjected to misyandrist bull-shit), but unfortunately one or two hundred rather nasty experiences with predatorygaysguys have put me in a position that I won’t trust them any longer, because they’re incapable of controlling their sexual urges, even when they know the person they’re directing them to isheterosexualnot in the least bit interested. It’s got nothing to do with class. They can’t be trusted to keep their cocks in their pockets. I know this might set the cat among the pigeons, but I don’t care.Oh, hang on, here comes my mates Harry and Ted. Hi fellas!
Helluva lot of well-endowed guys around hereabouts: most cocks are so brief they wouldn’t even REACH a pocket, let alone stay nestled inside one. Examine the geometry; you’ll see I’m right
All pensions should be paid singularly. Combined pensions particularly disadvantage the poor. Living with your mother/father or sister/brother or cousin is paid at a higher rate than in a relationship, unless it’s same sex. Means testing shouldn’t apply to combined assets below that now applying, nor income below average weekly earnings in the case of a partner. Financial independence and self esteem allow new relationships to prosper while the present system penalizes the self funded partner. Why would same sex couples want less benefits? Acceptance? You can’t buy it. Stick with what you’ve got. Those that count accept you, the others may never.
Zorronsky @ 9, I think you’re missing the major point by concentrating on a minor one. We may be slightly worse off in this one area of life if our relationships are recognised, but we have much else to gain in other areas: equal treatment over our rights to inherit our partner’s superannuation, and to retaining our property if our partner has to go into care, to quote just two examples. Not being able to formally register our relationships (and I’m reluctant to call it marriage because we don’t necessarily want that) brings us into disadvantage in areas of law that you may never have had to consider. It’s not just about acceptance, it’s about actual financial disadvantage and legal discrimination.
Emma @ 7,
Agree absolutely. Reinforces my argument indirectly, I reckon.But a lot of men, straight or gay, refuse to recognise much of trheir life is governed by a rush of blood freom brains to genitals. Well, that’s their problem.
That’s your problem Paul. You’re male after all…
Ambigulous, is that a cock in your pocket, or… nah, forget it.
Emma, awfully nice of you to think that of me, but no: it’s tissues, a few coins, the rest of the detritus gets put in jacket pockets (wallet, memory stick, etc).
But look, don’t let’s spoil the moment with damnable facts: I AM really pleased to see you…..
zorronsky,
I’ve got to say that I’m sure you mean well and all, but
a) there’s nothing more annoying to someone who’s systemically discriminated against by society’s laws than those who don’t suffer same telling us we’re ‘better off’ (like you’d know?); and
b) go read the HREOC report on discrimination against gays & lesbians etc. at the federal level which found no less than 120 changes that need to be made, and that categorically show that we are not ‘better off’ by any measure you can dream up.
To give you just two examples from my recent experience:
1) I sponsored my same sex partner to Australia on what is known as an ‘Interdependency’ Visa. As part of this I had to sign numerous legally binding documents to the effect that I would financially support her for a minimum of two years, and would also declare my relationship to all relevant authorities and services as part of supporting my stat. dec that she was my partner. I then went to Centrelink because I needed to sign on for the dole until I found a job, who of course don’t legally recognise same sex relationships. I asked them to put a stat dec on file for me showing that I had declared my relationship to them. They wouldn’t do it & told me to ’stop whinging because you’ll get more dole’. Three months later, Immigration is accusing me of not declaring my relationship to a government service. Catch 22 much?
2) Even though my partner is fully dependent on me, I’m not legally entitled to claim her as such under tax law, so I miss out on thousands of dollars of tax rebate that every other het couple, married or defacto, is entitled to. I do draw the line at paying for the medicare levy though based on my income being assessed as if I’m single, so I simply don’t declare my partner’s sex. I’ll cop missing out on tax rebates, but I refuse to pay more because our system is so discriminatory.
myriad,
it’s examples like the ones you’ve mentioned that appal many Australians, and when it comes to inheritances or superannuation, it can be in the hundreds of thousands of $. I think the reality of discrimination is (slowly) being more widely understood by those who don’t cop it directly.
BTW, I don’t mean to downplay your instances (involving thousands of $). Good luck!
j.
Its not my problem at all. I’m on medical treatment which completely removes my libido and I can tell you I much prefer it to when I had a sex drive, for heaps of reasons. Unfortunately, I’ll be off the treatment for a while after January, I think, but I hope not for too long. I much prefer not to be plagued by thoughts of sex. A much better, more productive life, I can tell you, with much less time-wasting. I actually wish I’d been like this all my life. No kidding.
No problem Ambigulous, I understood what you meant, and you’re quite right - the problems I’ve had are minor compared to the hell and financial loss some couples etc. experience.
At least here in Tas we can register our relationship, but of course as a federal public servant (ironically now working for Immigration!), my super going to my partner is not at all guaranteed, even though I’ve nominated her on all forms etc. At least I know my mum would give it to her if I died, but that’s hardly comfort!
cheers
Paul:
“Its not my problem at all. I’m on medical treatment which completely removes my libido and I can tell you I much prefer it to when I had a sex drive, for heaps of reasons.”
How is your sec drive relevant to the equation. Your original quote about gays was that “I won’t trust them any longer” because of the sex drive shown in one or two.
You didn’t say “I don’t trust people with high androgen levels” you didn’t say “i don’t trust gay men with high androgen levels” you said “i don’t trust them(gays) any longer”
It is clear that this has been shown to be a male quality as distinct from a gay quality. You are male. Therefore by logical extension you cannot be trusted, regardless of your androgen levels.
Put another way: Why do the actions of SOME gay men make you not trust all of them, when you don’t think you should be judged by the actions of SOME heterosexual men?