crush racism an sexism forever

He said "I would be more comfortable speaking with someone gay."

That is not at all similar to the "gay people make me uncomforable " example you used in your post. He isn't saying straight people make him uncomfortable. He is saying that because he is gay (I could be wrong, but the impication there seems to be that some of his financial issues are related to his lifestyle, possibly a partner, etc.) he would feel more comfortable speaking with someone who has personal experience with those issues.

I think it is pretty dumb for him to be looking for a gay lawyer with experience with central american fincance issues. If he does have some personal financial issues tied to his lifestyle (future planning for parner and children, etc.), he'd be better off getting the larger financial issue solved and then looking for a culturaly similar financial planner for his own stuff. But that is his choice.

In any case, I think you are just looking for an issue to pick on today and think you've latched on to some sort of reverse discrimination issue, but you haven't.
posted by necessitas at 8:09 AM on March 3, 2007

Ideally, I would like to find someone who has a background with such inheritance issues, is in Manhattan, and is gay or "gay-friendly."

I don't think this is unreasonable.
posted by grouse at 8:09 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

I like to speak at people with with downs syndrome, they find me funny. Unlucky lame guys can be fun too, they can rarely catch me. The ones in the sporty wheelchairs are especially great on sand.
posted by econous at 8:15 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

I am just curious as to whether this is OK.

Seeing as this is an anonymous question, it must have made it past a moderator. I would think that means it is OK, if as in OK, you mean "OK for AskMetafilter."
posted by marxchivist at 8:19 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

And this comparison is so awful I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps there's a parallel universe somewhere, where gays run the country and imported straight people as slave labor for a few centuries. As I understand US history, however, the reality is somewhat different.

My mom always told me two wrongs don't make a right. Was she wrong? Because I'm pretty sure that you're saying she's wrong and it's now only okay to discriminate against whitey, and only as long as he likes girls. And after we do that, we'll see a beautiful rainbow.

Oh for god's sake. If you can't understand why a gay person might want to patronize gay services, and what makes that different from a straight person not wanting to patronize gay services, I can't help you.

You're saying you have an air-tight justification for cultural relativism. I'd like to hear it. It might help me.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:20 AM on March 3, 2007

My mom always told me two wrongs don't make a right.

Your premise is wildly flawed, in that you assume that giving your business to someone who is gay or gay-friendly is entirely equivalent to keeping black people from eating at Denny's. This is false logic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:25 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

Meatbomb doesn't really object to the question. He likes to get people worked up about stuff, and probably thinks that this is an interesting way to 'test' our reactions.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:32 AM on March 3, 2007

Well then I'm in the minority, amongst those "who can't be helped".

I don't find it offensive that he wants to hire someone gay with whom he shares a "cultural" affinity. Fine. But to go from there and state that there is something wrong with the heterosexual wanting to visit a straight doctor or an anglo wanting an anglo banker is hypocritical. I'm not one to decry political correctness at every turn but this is the worst type. It's OK for a minority member to select service providers according to preference of gender, sexual orientation etc. but don't anybody else do it.

I would hardly expect the consensus view on Metafilter to be consistent in treating bias but there are some of us that find this hypocrisy ugly. Well, at least one.
posted by BigSky at 8:33 AM on March 3, 2007 [7 favorites]

all due respect to the mayor's mom, I think it's quite obvious that, for example, people (especially blacks, not just them) every right not to patronize a diner that keeps a huge Confederate flag on a wall, just like people (not enecssarily Jewish) have every right not to go see Apocalypto to make Mel "I hate teh Jews" Gibson even richer, etc

taking one's money to businesses that don't hate you or think you're subhuman is quite logical. I'm sure the Mayor's mom agrees.
posted by matteo at 8:33 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

This callout smacks of "Why can't we have a Straight Pride Parade" to me.
posted by CKmtl at 8:41 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

The poster knew straight financial planners would be squicked-out by his attempts to deduct 55-gallon drums of Boy Butter, and was simply trying to spare their feelings.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:46 AM on March 3, 2007

He is saying that because he is gay (I could be wrong, but the impication there seems to be that some of his financial issues are related to his lifestyle, possibly a partner, etc.) he would feel more comfortable speaking with someone who has personal experience with those issues.

This makes sense. I have gone through four accountants trying to find one familiar with small business done on the internet. Every time I meet with an accountant, we have a weird 15 minute back and forth about what I do, and they never understand. We're conditioned to be weird about money and we have to be weird about money with these strangers.

I can imagine having to meet an accountant for the first time and on top of all the weirdness about money, you'd have to tell them you're gay. Granted, in NYC, that's probably not too shocking of a revelation, but there's still a chance some freaky accountant would say "Oh I'm sorry, I don't know how to work with you people."

I say this because last month I opened up the local newspaper and saw that a women's shelter for recovering drug addicts was being fiercely blocked from relocating in our town and the person leading the crusade against the shelter was my latest accountant, a woman.
posted by mathowie at 8:46 AM on March 3, 2007

I say this because last month I opened up the local newspaper and saw that a women's shelter for recovering drug addicts was being fiercely blocked from relocating in our town and the person leading the crusade against the shelter was my latest accountant, a woman.

Your latest and current accountant?
posted by delmoi at 8:54 AM on March 3, 2007

But to go from there and state that there is something wrong with the heterosexual wanting to visit a straight doctor or an anglo wanting an anglo banker is hypocritical. I'm not one to decry political correctness at every turn but this is the worst type. It's OK for a minority member to select service providers according to preference of gender, sexual orientation etc. but don't anybody else do it.

I don't se anything wrong with the examples you've cited. Maybe it is just semantics, but I don't think there is anything wrong with someone interested in patronizing businesses or professionals who share a ethnic/cultural background, it is wrong when people refuse to patronize businesses (or provide service to customers) who don't. My aunt is a great example of the latter group. I am ashamed to say she picks her doctors based on who has the least ethnic sounding name. If she wanted a female doctor or a jewish doctor, that would be fine. But she goes down the list of doctors and eliminates the ones whose names sound foreign. She doesn't care if they are black, white, male or female, she just wants them to be american.

Wait, maybe it IS just semantics, because I suppose that could be rephrased to say "because she is american, she wants an american doctor." Ok, I think I'll stop now because I've obviously lost sight of my point.
posted by necessitas at 8:55 AM on March 3, 2007

Your latest and current accountant?

After this tax season, I'm moving on to a new one. I mentioned it because obviously we don't share the same values at all and I'd rather work with people that do.
posted by mathowie at 9:04 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

I can imagine having to meet an accountant for the first time and on top of all the weirdness about money, you'd have to tell them you're gay.

You have an odd relationship with your accountant. My financial planner never hears about what I do with my sexual organs.

And my financial planner might be a lesbian. And it never occurred to me to care until just this moment. But I guess I should find out because it affects her ability to help me in some vague way that no one will explain.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:05 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

My financial planner never hears about what I do with my sexual organs.

There is a reason an accountant would need to know, there are tax implications. In California, domestic partners can file as married next year. I'm sure New York isn't far behind.
posted by mathowie at 9:08 AM on March 3, 2007

It's OK for a minority member to select service providers according to preference of gender, sexual orientation etc. but don't anybody else do it.

There is often an obvious disparity of power between minority and majority that motivates minorities to seek out others who will treat them like equals, deserving of the same resources, respect and dignity that a majority will not often provide.

And indeed, there are cases where the majority will codify inequities into law, which may well be the case for this post, where homosexuals who cannot marry must find alternative means to manage the legalities and other particulars of each other's estate, tax and other financial responsibilities.

This inequity is not obvious to those in the majority, who are blind perhaps not of choice, but by simple virtue that they never will have to deal with these issues.

Thus we so often see specious comparisons, such as "whites-only restaurants" and "moral relativism", where no such comparisons are really applicable.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:11 AM on March 3, 2007 [5 favorites]

My mom always told me two wrongs don't make a right.

Not all discrimination is wrong. Certain types of discrimination have been institutionalized in the past, and such instintutionalized discrimination was generally found to be without merit. So now we treat those specific types of discrimination with increased skepticism. It doesn't follow from this that all discrimination is bad.

If I'm looking for someone to play Strom Thurmond in an upcoming movie, for example, it's perfectly legitimate for me to discriminate on the base of skin color. But even in such an exceptional context, I should still reasonably expect to explain this discrimination because white-only discrimination has a history of meritless institutionalization. Gay-only discrimination, on the other hand, has no such history, so it's not reasonable to expect it to be explained everywhere.

This is an unreasonable callout.
posted by scottreynen at 9:14 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

And being gay isn't just about doing something with your sexual organs. There is a huge culture and counterculture around it. There is a lot of opposition and sympathizers, people who seek them and people who refuse to share their company. It can be a bit of a struggle, you see?. That's the reason that I too, can imagine why he would be more comfortable with someone who at least is on the same side of trench. Even if the task at hand is unrelated to the lifestyle.
posted by micayetoca at 9:14 AM on March 3, 2007

Anonymous seems like kind of a dick for discriminating against heteros. I've never found a very good convincing logic why "discrimination is a bad thing, but it's actually not bad if the people doing the discrimination usually have the lower hand". Still, it doesn't violate MeFi policy, that I know of.

But, less argumentatively: there's the issue of whether he really wants a gay accountant, as he indicates sometimes, to "help his community", or if he wants a gay OR gay-friendly accountant, which he also indicates. The latter seems non-discriminatory to me. If you're gay, or straight, or white, or left-handed, or whathaveyou, it isn't discrimination to want to work with someone who doesn't hate you. Plus, there's a bit of vagueness about what "gay-friendly" means. In addition to "cool with gay folks", it could also mean, in the specific case of an accountant, "someone who knows accounting and laws as they relate to gays", like arranging joint accounts within the tangled jungle of United States treatment of gay marriage, or the like. In which case not only is it a groovy thing to get a gay-friendly accountant, it's goddamn critical to do so.

Plus, honestly, Anonymous made a big fucking mistake in that post: He said "Feel free to debate this if you like". Which means that all that side-discussion in the thread about whether or not he should be looking for what he's looking for cease to be noise, and are actually invited by the asker (or, rather, they are noise, but noise requested by the asker). I suspect he meant to say "Feel free to debate this if you like, but not here", or perhaps "Feel free to debate this if you like, by email", or even the incredibly contradictory "I understand you may disagree with this, and that doesn't bother me. There is no need to debate it here, though" (like the way people say "literally" to mean "figuratively", or "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less").
posted by bugbread at 9:18 AM on March 3, 2007

You have an odd relationship with your accountant.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you skim the thread and come up with a snappy one-liner? It's already been explained that there could be potential tax implications of his sexuality, e.g. as above in
He is saying that because he is gay (I could be wrong, but the impication there seems to be that some of his financial issues are related to his lifestyle, possibly a partner, etc.) he would feel more comfortable speaking with someone who has personal experience with those issues.
posted by Tuwa at 9:22 AM on March 3, 2007

Blazecock Pileon writes "There is often an obvious disparity of power between minority and majority that motivates minorities to seek out others who will treat them like equals, deserving of the same resources, respect and dignity that a majority will not often provide."

Yes, but that's assuming that a member of the majority is incapable of treating a member of the minority like equals, deserving of the same resources, respect and dignity. But that isn't the case. If you want someone who will treat you like an equal, deserving of the same resources, respect and dignity, then what you want is a gay-friendly accountant, not a gay accountant. Sure, that's statistically likely to end up being a gay accountant, but that's not a statistic game that one should be playing. Playing that game leads people to doing things like not hiring blacks because they're more statistically likely to get arrested and put in jail.
posted by bugbread at 9:22 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

You have an odd relationship with your accountant. My financial planner never hears about what I do with my sexual organs.

And my financial planner might be a lesbian. And it never occurred to me to care until just this moment. But I guess I should find out because it affects her ability to help me in some vague way that no one will explain.

It's not about which meat-tabs go into which meat-slots, really. It's about identity and a comfortable working relationship. In a perfect world, a financial planner / accountant wouldn't treat their clients differently based on their sexual identity (or race, or what have you), but we're not in a perfect world.

If the client's homosexuality isn't brought up at the start, he may be sitting through each meeting wondering if the financial planner's giving him the stink-eye because his hair is a bit too fabulous, or if he mentions something about 'me and Bob' wanting to eventually buy a condo together. Would you want to have to constantly analyze the social situation like that? Or not knowing if the person with their hands in your money is a bigot? Not to say that all straight people are bigots, but that's the point of being upfront about it and wanting a gay or gay-friendly person.
posted by CKmtl at 9:24 AM on March 3, 2007

There are also many states that are actively trying to eliminate the ability of gay people to form contracts with each other, claiming that any contracts creating financial partnerships that "resemble" marriages are illegal. Child custody laws surrounding surrogacy and gay parents and adoption are often conflicting, confusing, and years behind the times with regards to available reproductive technologies. And this legislation is rapidly changing, with new laws being proposed or struck down constantly.

I can't imagine, if I were in that situation, not needing an accountant intimately familiar with those laws, and the future of those laws, and the history of those laws. It would be totally negligent for an accountant who was not gay-friendly (in that sense, of knowing the legalities that apply specifically to gay relationships) to be working with the anon poster.

So, basically, what Blazecock Pileon said. If you can't imagine why being gay would matter when it comes to financial and legal planning, it's because you're ignorant of how this country's laws directly affect (and mostly discriminate against) gay people.
posted by occhiblu at 9:27 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yes, but that's assuming that a member of the majority is incapable of treating a member of the minority like equals, deserving of the same resources, respect and dignity.

If the law is written so that two gay people cannot get married (or enter into a legally recognized relationship similar to marriage) — which is the case for nearly all of the country — then they need legal and financial expertise that is, in all reality, much less likely to be available from someone who is not gay or not gay-friendly.

This does not begin to address the stupidity of comparing seeking out specialized help with kicking blacks out of a whites-only restaurant.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:29 AM on March 3, 2007

Dear AskMe: I am trying to find a community weblog where everyone agrees with my worldview. Please advise.
posted by LarryC at 9:33 AM on March 3, 2007 [5 favorites]

necessitas,

I don't think it is just semantics at all. Your post is pretty much the way I see it as well. Granted, the distinction is not always smooth but I am more sympathetic to a "going towards" mentality than an "avoiding" one. I don't think that the poster in question is objectionaable in any way. What I find ugly is the idea that this kind of filtering is OK when the gays [or - insert your favorite minority group here] do it and only then.

Blazecock Pileon,

As I mentioned above I don't have any issue with people making selections according to their biases. And when there is an actual difference in services provided I would expect that that provider would command greater market rewards commensurate with the value they provide. So if a gay financial planner provides more value to gay client well and good. He might also provide more value just in terms of it being a more comfortable environment for his gay clients. That's still OK. Now, is there a problem when the white man wants to contract a commercial landscape service with a company run by an Anglo because that's who he feels most comfortable talking with?
posted by BigSky at 9:34 AM on March 3, 2007

Ideally, I would like to find someone who has a background with such inheritance issues, is in Manhattan, and is gay or "gay-friendly."

This callout misrepresents the asker. Gay or gay-friendly just asks for acceptance, not sameness. The fact that the poster later abbreviates this as 'gay' does not change the nature of the restriction.

The analogue you're looking for isn't a whites-only restaurant, it's: "Please help me find a hairdresser comfortable doing a male-to-female pre-op transsexual's hair; I hate arguing about the pricing when I try to pay the higher woman's rate. Transsexuals or trannie-friendly strongly preferred."

It might even be as sexist as this: "Please help me find a professional gay man for accounting and afternoon delight. Wavering straight men are acceptable, but please no homophobes, as I don't like having my skull caved in by a glorified book keeper."
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:37 AM on March 3, 2007

Actually, it strikes me that if I were in anon's place but were not facing legal issues with same-sex partnership or adoption, I would still want to support financial planners who had taken it upon themselves to see these issues as important enough to be competent in, so that I could reward them financially for assuming that my community's needs were important. Supporting those professionals would be a way to make other professionals realize that they couldn't simply pretend that gay financial planning issues were irrelevant, and might encourage them to get the training and experience necessary to help future clients.
posted by occhiblu at 9:38 AM on March 3, 2007

I will join the chorus of not seeing what the problem is here. First of all, he is comfortable with "gay-friendly" and I don't see how you could be comfortable with that and still anti-hetero. Second of all, I would expect the default position of a financial advisor to be hetero- and/or white friendly. To be gay-friendly would seem to be an added qualification that (perhaps, I honestly have no idea) some planners would have and others may lack. And we're not just talking about qualfications in the sense of "expert in gay issues in financial planning" but also qualifications in terms of "can more easily relate to what's going on".
posted by ontic at 9:40 AM on March 3, 2007

This callout seems oddly oversensitive to me. So the asker would like a gay financial planner, so what?

When I feel like eating Indian food, I prefer going to restaurant run by (Asian) Indians. When I eat at a Spanish restaurant, I like it when the chef/proprietor is Spanish.

Are you really going to take that against me?
posted by Lush at 9:43 AM on March 3, 2007

For the record, I would have no problem with a person who wanted a commercial landscape designer who didn't discriminate against white people. Sounds perfectly reasonable -- it's also going to be terribly common and so hardly worth asking about except in very specific places.
posted by ontic at 9:44 AM on March 3, 2007

I would feel more comfortable deliberating this issue with someone sober.
posted by prostyle at 9:45 AM on March 3, 2007 [7 favorites]

And we're not just talking about qualfications in the sense of "expert in gay issues in financial planning" but also qualifications in terms of "can more easily relate to what's going on".

Yeah, that's why some people feel more comfortable doing all business with hetero white christians. They can "more easily relate to what's going on". Giving them business is a way of helping and supporting the community.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2007

Yeah, that's why some people feel more comfortable doing all business with hetero white christians.

Are people who support this community hard to find or in great need of support against a popular culture that opposes and thwarts attempts of it even to exist?
posted by ontic at 9:53 AM on March 3, 2007

This is just bizarre. Every major US city I've been to has some form of community-published gay yellow pages, or at the very least, a GLBT weekly with ads from gay-owned businesses aimed specifically at gay people. I use them myself simply to support the community. This dude isn't doing anything different than gay people and their straight allies do every day.

If you really want to make a dent against this menace, I suggest you start a campaign against all the gay realtors who advertise as "family friendly." There are about five for every house available here in Portland alone, as far as I can tell, so you better get cracking.
posted by melissa may at 9:53 AM on March 3, 2007

Wait, Meatbomb, you're still here and defending this execrable callout? I would have thought you'd slink away with your tail between your legs by now. Perhaps you should consider that course of action.

Gay or gay-FRIENDLY.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:53 AM on March 3, 2007

Blazecock Pileon writes "If the law is written so that two gay people cannot get married (or enter into a legally recognized relationship similar to marriage) — which is the case for nearly all of the country — then they need legal and financial expertise that is, in all reality, much less likely to be available from someone who is not gay or not gay-friendly."

Blazecock, I think we just shot past each other. I am totally groovy with the "gay OR gay-friendly" search. That makes infinite sense to me, from a personal standpoint (feeling comfortable with your accountant) and a professional standpoint (the accountant knowing what he needs to know to handle my finances well). My response was just about the hypothetical "gay only" situation.

I just think the asker phrased his question badly. Sometimes he says "gay or gay friendly", and I see almost all of us agreeing on that. Sometimes he just says "gay", and I see folks disagreeing on that. If he'd written "gay or gay-friendly" each time (which would just increase his word count by 4 words total, or a 0.1% word count increase), probably most of this discussion wouldn't even have happened. And if on top of that he'd skipped the "Feel free to debate this if you like", I think almost all of the noise in the original question would disappear, and the answers would be much more useful to him. It's not like he commited a cardinal sin, he just phrased his question a little sloppily. It happens.

There's a phrase in Japanese: "Don't grab my lifted leg". It means, basically, "yes, I know I made a little phrasing mistake. Don't seize it and make a big deal about it; it was just a mistake, not something intentional". I think that's the case here: he slipped up his phrasing, but the more I think about it, the more clear it is that he was just sloppy in using "gay" to mean "gay or gay-friendly", and we're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
posted by bugbread at 9:54 AM on March 3, 2007

Now, is there a problem when the white man wants to contract a commercial landscape service with a company run by an Anglo because that's who he feels most comfortable talking with?

Because Anglos (what, no Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians?) are the only people who will treat this white man as an equal human being? There are no non-Anglo white-friendly people?

Feeling comfortable because the person you're dealing with sees you as an equal is one thing. Comfort stemming from your own biases against outsiders is another thing entirely.
posted by CKmtl at 9:55 AM on March 3, 2007

anotherpanacea: I am asking if it's OK, not saying it isn't OK. It seemed an oddly worded question to me, is all. And for all you want to emphasize "gay or gay-friendly", I would redirect you to "I would be more comfortable speaking with someone gay". The makes the asker's intentions / motivations less than clear to me.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:58 AM on March 3, 2007

Ok...This is starting to get confusing. People talking about gay-or-gay-friendly are getting comebacks based on gay-only assumptions, and people talking about gay-only are getting comebacks based on gay-or-gay-friendly assumptions.

Let's all start prepending our comments about whether we're getting righteously indignant about:

Option 1) Someone wanting to hire only gay folks.
Option 2) Someone wanting to hire only gay or gay-friendly folks.
posted by bugbread at 10:00 AM on March 3, 2007

bugbread, I mostly agree, but I think it's a bit wrong to claim that not being totally hetero-inclusive in every single phrasing is the poster "slipping up." No one should have to feel compelled to soothe the ruffled feathers of overly sensitive straight people every time he wants to discuss gay issues; that's a silly burden. I really think the problem here is that Meatbomb et al are being (possibly disingenuously) overly sensitive, not that the poster was being rude.

I mean, for heaven's sake, does being straight carry such a precarious legal, emotional, and financial status in this society that we can't somehow deal with being excluded from a single person's search criteria?
posted by occhiblu at 10:02 AM on March 3, 2007

On non-preview: It's getting confusing because the entire argument against the question is stupid, and it's only possible to continue the argument by splitting hairs.
posted by occhiblu at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2007

Meatbomb writes "The makes the asker's intentions / motivations less than clear to me."

Then that's your problem. It isn't whether "that kind of sexism [is] halal on AskMe", like your initial post said. It's about whether "this is an example of homosexism, or just a slip of the tongue". And there's only one person in all of MetaFilter who can answer that question, and he posted anonymously, so you're never going to get the answer to your question. Yes, unanswered curiosity sucks. Deal with it, because nobody here can help you find out the answer.
posted by bugbread at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2007

Option 1: Permissible due to the possible rarity of "cultural comfort" in many situations, but possibily limiting onself in terms of quality.

Option 2: Permissible due to the possible rarity of "cultural comfort" in many situations.
posted by ontic at 10:05 AM on March 3, 2007

I just think the asker phrased his question badly.

Disagreements about interpretations of phrasing are cool, I guess. Since it's a matter of reading comprehension, or reading into or guessing the anonymous poster's intent, on that level I'm honestly not sure there's much to be gained by that conversation.

I think that's the case here: he slipped up his phrasing

I'm not sure I agree, but I agree with you that the response (most of the original post's comments, this post) certainly seemed disproportionate and obnoxious.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2007

Is that kind of sexism halal on AskMe?

why does it have to be halal? couldn't it be kosher?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:12 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

Metatalk: the entire argument against the question is stupid, and it's only possible to continue the argument by splitting hairs.
posted by vacapinta at 10:16 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yeah, that's why some people feel more comfortable doing all business with hetero white christians.

If I were a hetero at tax time, or when dealing with trusts and estates, I'd want a professional who could handle taxes and laws relating to marriage and children. You know, one who could relate to breeding. Fortunately, that's the standard among accountants and tax attorneys! They all know about that stuff. It's required learning.

But there are specialized tax and accounting and estate needs for all sorts of customers. For instance, I have a friend who needs a specialist because he and his wife work and have income and residences in different countries. He's neither going to be interested in working with someone who has no expertise that area, nor someone who thinks miscegenation is wrong. (Yes, such people exist.) He'll be screwed on either account.

This question-asker is dealing with estate planning and trusts; there's often nothing more contentious than throwing inherited money into a family, particularly if there's any issues with the gay member of the family. You'd be an idiot not to bring in an understanding professional.

Also, both Merrill Lynch and Citigroup have specialized financial planning services for the gays. They invented these units because 1. they knew they could make money off the gays but 2. because they knew there was both specialization and expertise needed to serve those customers.

And now, I'm going to undermine my calm and rational post here by saying that some of you need to spend a couple of days as a faggot before you think you know all about it. Oooh, am I a cultural relativist now? Well, tie me to the stake.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2007 [5 favorites]

My aunt is a great example of the latter group. I am ashamed to say she picks her doctors based on who has the least ethnic sounding name. If she wanted a female doctor or a jewish doctor, that would be fine. But she goes down the list of doctors and eliminates the ones whose names sound foreign. She doesn't care if they are black, white, male or female, she just wants them to be american.

If it's indeed true that United States medical schools are more selective, or more difficult to graduate from, then your aunt is being perfectly reasonable.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2007

I think this is an interesting discussion, but I'd like to address meatbomb's actual question:

Is that kind of sexism halal on AskMe?

I don't agree that this is sexism (racism or any other ism for that matter), but why the hell wouldn't it be? How would that break guidlines? If someone wanted a haircut in anywheretown and only wanted to go to a gay stylist, would that be a problem? Or if someone wanted to find a white landscape designer in anywheretown. That is the person's choice. Ask.Me is here for all the questions that can't be asked elsewhere. We aren't here to judge a person's motives, we are just here to help and answer the question. I think we are all adult enough not to have our feathers ruffled when exposed to other people's preferences. Do we really need to call out the PC police? People ask all sorts of questions here, if you find one to be offensive but doesn't break the guidelines, just move along.
posted by necessitas at 10:22 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

As if it's not obvious from the post, the asker needs advice about a very stressful subject that involves family dynamics. At the very least, perhaps he doesn't want his own sexual orientation to be a barrier between him and his planner. He needs someone he can look to for trusted advice on a personal matter. It's not that different from choosing a therapist. Let him pick whoever the fuck he wants.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. In a different universe where there is, you're also in trouble for your racist use of "halal."
posted by scarabic at 10:22 AM on March 3, 2007

Kwantsar: If it's indeed true that United States medical schools are more selective, or more difficult to graduate from, then your aunt is being perfectly reasonable.

Only if immigration is a completely new phenomenon in america, and it's virtually impossible that the children of immigrants could have gone to said spectacular med schools and kept their foreign-sounding last names... Dr. Chung or Dr. Mbasa could very well have been at the top of their class at Princeton, UCLA, or wherever.
posted by CKmtl at 10:26 AM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

If it's indeed true that United States medical schools are more selective, or more difficult to graduate from, then your aunt is being perfectly reasonable.

No, there is no rational thinking going on there. The only thought process going on is an opinionated one. I used her as an example of bias against rather than preference for. While she doesn't dislike any ethnic group, she has drawn all these conclusions about certain ethnic group member's behavior based on limited experience. She thinks that asian doctors are too curt and abrupt and not touchy-feely/emotional. She thinks that caribbean women are too tough and not understanding. The list goes on and on. To say she is crazy and wrong would be pointing out the obvious. She was just used as an example of what not to do, not what to do.
posted by necessitas at 10:28 AM on March 3, 2007

I'm thinking about placing an online personal ad. Due to things and stuff, I'd like someone with a vagina, or someone with a vagina-friendly. I'd be more comfortable with someone with a vagina.

OMG SEXISM

Preference for a certain trait is okay. It doesn't have to be an ism.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:28 AM on March 3, 2007

"Feeling comfortable because the person you're dealing with sees you as an equal is one thing."

Ah, I see. Assuming that your kind is more capable of treating you like an equal (professionally?) is totally different from other kinds of bias.

Thanks for the clarity.
posted by BigSky at 10:39 AM on March 3, 2007

Mayor Curley opines "You have an odd relationship with your accountant. My financial planner never hears about what I do with my sexual organs."

Then again this can have some bearing on your financial planning. Most openly gay people I know aren't particularly interested in leaving a big estate for their children, for example, whereas this is a major financial-planning concern for a lot of (if not most) straight people.
posted by clevershark at 10:49 AM on March 3, 2007

Assuming that your kind is more capable of treating you like an equal (professionally?) is totally different from other kinds of bias.

Would you hire a chef to fix your computer? A biochemist to tune your instruments? An optometrist to install plumbing?

In an ideal world, people would not need to specialize. In the real world, some biases for those with specific skills are useful, even necessary.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:53 AM on March 3, 2007

I just want a bookkeeper who is well-versed in double-entry.
posted by found missing at 10:54 AM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

*dances a little to see RJ Reynolds*
posted by scody at 10:56 AM on March 3, 2007

BigSky: Ah, I see. Assuming that your kind is more capable of treating you like an equal (professionally?) is totally different from other kinds of bias.

I never limited it to anyone's "kind", neither did the original asker. See the whole gay-friendly distinction. Considering gay-friendly straights pretty much obliterates the "all straights are anti-gay" position.

Given the social and political climate, it's pretty reasonable for an openly gay man to be a bit wary when entering into professional relationships like that, since there's a non-trivial probability that the straight guy could be anti-gay.

And yes, "professional" people's biases do sometimes prevent them from treating their clients as equals. Just recently, there was a 'Christian' pediatrician who refused to treat a little girl's ear infection because her mother had a tattoo.
posted by CKmtl at 11:04 AM on March 3, 2007

From the original post:

For me, it's a cultural issue, but I also believe in supporting my community (though not at the risk of bad advice or planning.)

So the dude would like to support the gay community so he asked for help with that, but it's pretty clear that he's not going to put the gay issue enough of bad advice or planning. So it's all good and everyone can move on now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:09 AM on March 3, 2007

Just recently, there was a 'Christian' pediatrician who refused to treat a little girl's ear infection because her mother had a tattoo.

suffer the little children to come unto me unless their moms have a rose tattoo'd on their arm
posted by pyramid termite at 11:10 AM on March 3, 2007

If you can't understand why a gay person might want to patronize gay services, and what makes that different from a straight person not wanting to patronize gay services, I can't help you.

If I read one more comment about how LanguageHat is so great because he always makes an effort to disagree without talking down to people or treating them like they're stupid, I'm going to fucking vomit.
posted by cribcage at 11:10 AM on March 3, 2007 [3 favorites]

occhiblu writes "bugbread, I mostly agree, but I think it's a bit wrong to claim that not being totally hetero-inclusive in every single phrasing is the poster 'slipping up.' No one should have to feel compelled to soothe the ruffled feathers of overly sensitive straight people every time he wants to discuss gay issues"

Actually, one of the first few responses to Anonymous was by a gay guy berating him, so it's not just straight people.

And, no, he shouldn't have to feel compelled to soothe anyone's ruffled feathers, gay or straight. But I suspect he's more interested in getting a good accountant recommendation than this ruckus, so from that point of view, he slipped up, because he phrased his question in such a way that he's getting a higher noise-signal ratio than he probably wanted.

occhiblu writes "I really think the problem here is that Meatbomb et al are being (possibly disingenuously) overly sensitive, not that the poster was being rude."

I didn't mean to imply he was rude, just that he phrased his question in a non-optimal way, and some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill because of it.

occhiblu writes "does being straight carry such a precarious legal, emotional, and financial status in this society that we can't somehow deal with being excluded from a single person's search criteria?"

Well, that's moving back to the not-really-pertinent-to-this-particular-case mountain issue of "is choosing someone for business based on their sexual preference inherently a bad thing?" In which case I'd say that the problem with discrimination isn't that people can't deal with single little cases, but that we find discrimination itself bad.

Which, again, is not something that I think directly relates to this case. That's just an aside regarding your question.
posted by bugbread at 11:12 AM on March 3, 2007

I think it depends on the question. I never ask a straight guy "does this tie go with this shirt?" Invariably, when I pick the tie myself, my wife winces, when I ask a gay friend for help she says "great choice."
posted by three blind mice at 11:23 AM on March 3, 2007

Setting aside the "gay-friendly" part, and just looking at how people are thinking about the "hiring gays only" issue, it seems to me we have a similar breakdown of ideas here as we do when people discuss free speech. In regards to free speech, there seem to be 3 main camps:

1) All speech should be free, because suppressing speech is in itself bad (with some small exceptions, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater)
2) Speech should be free, unless it is hateful or dangerous
3) All speech should be free, because while it would be good to suppress hateful and dangerous speech, it's really difficult to agree on the dividing line, and there's too much danger of a slippery-slope (slippery slope argument, not slippery slope fallacy)

Here, we have the pretty analogous positions of:

1) Any selection based on race, sexuality, etc., is bad, because discrimination is in itself bad (with some small exceptions, like it's ok to restrict your search to males only when trying to cast someone to play Richard Nixon in a movie)
2) Selection based on race, sexuality, etc., is bad, except when it is for non-hateful or non-dangerous reasons.
3) Any selection based on race, sexuality, etc. is bad, because while it would be good to allow for non-hateful, non-dangerous reasons, it's really difficult to agree on the dividing line, and there's too much danger of a slippery slope (argument, not fallacy)

I'm really curious how the two correlate for everyone. I fall into camp 3 for both.
posted by bugbread at 11:51 AM on March 3, 2007

anotherpanacea: I am asking if it's OK, not saying it isn't OK. It seemed an oddly worded question to me, is all.

Oh, bullshit. You can pretend to be Mr. Vaguely Confused Nice Person if you want, but then you have to avoid making comments like

Yeah, that's why some people feel more comfortable doing all business with hetero white christians. They can "more easily relate to what's going on".

Because that kind of blows the pretense out of the water.
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on March 3, 2007

It seems like his rationale is that he wants to support "his community." I don't see how different that is from African-American leaders urging people to "shop black" or certain Christians touting the "Christian Yellow Pages."

On the one hand, that seems perfectly acceptable. OTOH, it seems silly, because it's part of this move towards ghetto-ifying race, religion, creed, gender, and sexual orientation into easy-to-market-to boxes. I know this has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but I don't think that necessarily makes it right, if it is right all the time.
posted by dw at 12:05 PM on March 3, 2007

Yeah, that's why some people feel more comfortable doing all business with hetero white christians.

Yes, and there are whole business devoted to people looking for that: Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, for instance.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:16 PM on March 3, 2007

He likes to get people worked up about stuff, and probably thinks that this is an interesting way to 'test' our reactions.

Let's not let the obvious get in the way of a good argument.

Do y'all even know what you're arguing about anymore? Passing judgment on whether an individual attending to their own business should consider sexual orientation when choosing a personal adviser is to question the validity of basic personal freedom.

Why are we doing that again?
posted by scheptech at 12:29 PM on March 3, 2007

scheptech writes "Passing judgment on whether an individual attending to their own business should consider sexual orientation when choosing a personal adviser is to question the validity of basic personal freedom."

No, because nobody's saying one shouldn't have the freedom to do so. They're saying one should, but choosing someone based on their sexual orientation is a bad choice. Free speech is valid. If someone uses their free speech to trash talk a good person out of jealousy, or to hurt other people, or to con people, and we say that that use of free speech wasn't good, we aren't questioning the validity of free speech, just the quality of a particular exercising of it.
posted by bugbread at 12:42 PM on March 3, 2007

"Where can I eat in a nice whites-only restaurant?"

That is a legit if distasteful question, capable of factual answers. I suspect however there would be few Mefites who could answer such a question, and even fewer who would want to.

Read the guidelines. Distastefulness, immorality, hatefulness do not figure as grounds for deletion far as I can tell. And I think that's a good thing.

So I vote for the current question on free-speech grounds alone, never mind whether Meatbomb's proposed analogy is legit.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:15 PM on March 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm really curious how the two correlate for everyone. I fall into camp 3 for both.

Me too. But this is one of those areas where liberalism splits with progressivism. To the extent that this is a useful distinction, progressives tend to go with #2 on both questions. As a result, liberals accuse progressives of insufficient devotion to general principles, whereas progressives accuse liberals of ignoring larger social structures. Liberals insist on their general principles (e.g. no discrimination) because they believe that these promote fairness for individuals most effectively. They worry about individuals who will be hurt by efforts to discriminate because lots of people fail to fall neatly into the more general groupings upon which the discrimination is based. Progressives focus on social structures (and groups of people) because they believe that maligned groups are most in need of defense, and so their efforts are best spent helping these groups. They are more concerned with people in their capacity as members of various groups. You get disagreements like this as a result.
posted by smorange at 1:17 PM on March 3, 2007 [6 favorites]

It seems like his rationale is that he wants to support "his community."

Uh, no it doesn't, not in the slightest. As has already been pointed out many times in this thread, being gay actually has tax implications. Estate planning is (much) more complicated. Filing as a married couple is obviously right out, even if that's what you de facto are and have been forever.

This is part of what is meant by straight privilege: that the discrimination is actually, concretely inscribed in law and practice both, such that it has teeth. Why is that so hard to understand?

Or is more what I strongly suspect: that it's not at all hard to understand, and you're merely playing at befuddlement?
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:04 PM on March 3, 2007

"Where can I eat in a nice whites-only restaurant?"

iceland ... the menu's right here
posted by pyramid termite at 2:11 PM on March 3, 2007

adamgreenfield writes "Uh, no it doesn't, not in the slightest."

Actually, it does, in the slightest. Or, rather, it seems he has more than one rationale. One is that being gay in a long-term relationship can have specific financial quirks. The other is, in his words, "I also believe in supporting my community". So, yeah, his primary rationale probably is the financial reasons (actually, I'm just guessing that, because it makes the most sense), but another slight rationale is wanting to support his community.

That, or you're calling him a liar. One of the two.
posted by bugbread at 2:27 PM on March 3, 2007

I suppose that (1) I know why the person in AskMetafilter is asking: legal issues of inheritance, custody, etc. are exceedingly difficult and complicated for the gay community compared to the straight community - I have co-workers that seek out financial planners and lawyers strictly based on their knowledge of the law and their previous gay couple case experience.

and (2) why the person posting here in MetaTalk is "complaining": because if you asked for a "straight" financial planner you might get quickly shot down.

The majority of financial planners are going to be mostly schooled in commonlawmarrage/single/married/not-married-but-kids situations, not gay couple situations. They really won't know how to do planning based on the legal matters that face gay couples.

Nevertheless, I admittedly wonder if there would be cries of homophobia if a married person asked for a "straight marriage counselor". I suspect the non-sensitive language to use would be "a married marriage counselor" and you could get away with the question without too much hubbub.

I see the point of the original question posted (since a lot of folks I work with will have horrible legal issues if they DON'T have a financial planner and/or lawyer who understands the legal complications of a gay couple that can not legally enter into a marriage contract) as well as the question posted here in metatalk... although, the way it's posted does smack of a (possible) underlying prejudice.

Were it me, I would not use a loaded term like "sexism" and at least make an effort to pose the question as one of genuine curiosity and not one of (possibly) offended indignation.
posted by smallerdemon at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2007

Actually, it does, in the slightest.

Don't grab my lifted leg, dude. You know what I meant.

What I don't get is what you mean. What exactly is your agenda here? Do you really not see why a gay person might have concrete reasons for wanting to conduct financial planning with someone both thoroughly conversant with the tax-law implications of their orientation, and sympathetic to them?

In other words, there is clarity aplenty here, and as far as I can tell the effect of all your input has been to muddy that clarity needlessly. Unless offering a bogus taxonomy of arguments against the curtailment of speech somehow speaks to the issue of equal rights under law?

I have no doubt that in your heart, your intentions are good. But you're overthinking things, overcomplicating them, introducing if not fear than uncertainty and doubt where there should be none. In the process, you're giving those interested in reinforcing a pernicious status quo a wedge where they deserve none.

In a better world, of course, there would be no implications financial, legal or otherwise of one's natural-born orientation. But this is the world we live in, and as long as we do, it is only right and proper that someone seek professional services offered by someone that is not merely knowledgeable with regard to the specific situation at hand, but is also inclined to advocate forcefully for the client.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:44 PM on March 3, 2007 [2 favorites]

Oh, hetero please!

/all I can say about this callout.
posted by wemayfreeze at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2007

adamgreenfield said what I've been trying to formulate for a while, and he said it much better than I could have.

So, yeah. What he said.
posted by occhiblu at 3:04 PM on March 3, 2007

adamgreenfield writes "Don't grab my lifted leg, dude. You know what I meant."

Ah, sorry, didn't realize it was a slip of the tongue. The leg lifting was not intentional. I apologize.

adamgreenfield writes "What exactly is your agenda here?"

I don't have one, nearest I reckon.

adamgreenfield writes "Do you really not see why a gay person might have concrete reasons for wanting to conduct financial planning with someone both thoroughly conversant with the tax-law implications of their orientation, and sympathetic to them?"

No, I've said several times upthread that I'm totally cool with that.

In fact, this is one of the reasons I recommended that people write what they're getting offended by, because we have two topics of discussion here:

1) Is it fair/good/acceptable/whathaveyou to pick an accountant based on their sexual preferences?
2) Is it fair/good/acceptable/whathaveyou to pick an accountant based on their comfortableness with your own sexual preferences, and their knowledge of accounting and legal conditions related to it?

The asker, in this case, was of category 2, nearest I can figure. And I'm totally groovy with that. No problem whatsoever.

Category 1 doesn't apply to this asker, but it's a topic also being discussed in this thread. Category 1, I'm not so groovy with.

adamgreenfield writes "But you're overthinking things, overcomplicating them, introducing if not fear than uncertainty and doubt where there should be none."

I totally disagree. People here are talking about two entirely different issues, but either pretending they're the same issue, or just plain not noticing the difference. I see people here who agree with eachother disagreeing left and right because of this misunderstanding. Lots of convos like this:

A: "I think it's bad to pick someone based on their sexual preference"
B: "I totally disagree. There's nothing wrong with picking someone based on their acceptance of your preference, or their professional knowledge that applies to it."

A and B are convinced they're disagreeing, but they're not even talking about the same damn thing. What I'm trying to do is not to "overthink" things or make them overcomplicated, but pointing out, "Guys, you're making overly complex disagreements based off a very simple disagreement about what the hell you're talking about in the first place".

To make another example:

A: "Did you see that Bruce Willis movie on TV last night? It rocked!"
B: "No, it sucked! You're so wrong"
A: "The part where Bruce Willis says 'yippee cayee motherfucker!' was awesome"
B: "The acting was terrible, and Danny Aiello was totally miscast."
Me: "Uh, A and B? You're talking about different movies. A's talking about Die Hard, on ABC, and B's talking about Hudson Hawk, on NBC"
posted by bugbread at 3:43 PM on March 3, 2007

(If you think the topic is actually pretty simple, and needs no clarification, then why did you disagree with me about something I am agreeing with you about?)
posted by bugbread at 3:45 PM on March 3, 2007

bugbread's schema is very interesting. There is no doubt that surpressing any free speech always involves some badness, but there is also no doubt that sometimes that badness can be outweighed by the goodness of preventing some very very bad free speech sometimes.
If you lean axiological, you think that the only thing that weighs on how you should act is how much good the act produces. In that case, you would lean toward camp 2) or 3), depending on how well you thought that you could discriminate between the overall "bad" speech and the overall "good" speech--if you thought that you had a pretty good handle on how to discriminate, you'd be in camp 2); if you weren't so sure, camp 3).
If, on the other hand, you lean intuitively deontological, you think that there is more to deciding how to act than merely maximizing goodness in individual instances--you might think that always following the right general rule will lead to maximizing overall goodness in the world, for example. If you have that sort of intuition, you might see that 1) looks like the right kind of general rule to follow to maximize overall goodness--since surpressing free speech always involves some badness, never surpressing it will always prevent this badness.

(Worries and oversimplifications abound, of course; and there are also some people who think that acting morally involves acting charitably or benevolently; it's never been clear to me exactly what these people are up to, but I suspect that they would also go with choice #1).

What do I think? I dunno; I'm one of the folks who worries about what we mean by "good" when we have these discussions.
posted by Kwine at 3:54 PM on March 3, 2007

Don't grab my lifted leg, dude. You know what I meant.

I don't. Here's what he said in the post:

For me, it's a cultural issue, but I also believe in supporting my community (though not at the risk of bad advice or planning.)

So a) I need a financial planner who understands the tax/legal ramifications of being GLBT, AND b) I want to give my money to a member of the GLBT community.

Even then, though, it seems like the bigger need is someone who understands Latin American probate laws.

It does seem ghettofied, but it's probably more along the lines of a Muslim asking for a financial planner who understood Islamic teachings about money and oh, he'd like this person to be Muslim or Muslim-friendly. Is it OK to exclude those "not like you" because you think (but don't know) they lack the "special knowledge" you believe is germane to your situation? I don't know.
posted by dw at 3:56 PM on March 3, 2007

It's getting confusing because the entire argument against the question is stupid, and it's only possible to continue the argument by splitting hairs.

Exactly. Is anybody here still seriously equating choosing a gay financial planner with bigotry? Anybody?
posted by mediareport at 4:18 PM on March 3, 2007

mediareport writes "Is anybody here still seriously equating choosing a gay financial planner with bigotry? Anybody?"

Did anybody in the first place?
posted by bugbread at 4:25 PM on March 3, 2007

Yes, I think so. The analogy with white supremacism was very clear, and reading between the lines a little, and factoring in the ignorance of basic gay issues, yes. Yes, very much.
posted by mediareport at 4:35 PM on March 3, 2007

Huh. I don't see it.
posted by bugbread at 4:45 PM on March 3, 2007

bugbread: not to rehash, but "white-only restaurant" in the original MeTa... BigSky's hypothetical white guy
posted by CKmtl at 4:59 PM on March 3, 2007

AskMetafilter: being gay actually has tax implications.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 PM on March 3, 2007

Did anybody in the first place?

Yes, bugbread, the person who posted this call-out very clearly equated the motives of someone searching for a gay or gay-friendly financial planner with the motives of someone who would want to dine at a "whites-only restaurant", i.e. being motivated by a philosophy of segregationism, seperatism, or racism — all otherwise understood in the real world to be bigotry.

This comparison was also made by one of the people who responded to the original question, though this response was deleted.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:20 PM on March 3, 2007

Ok, I was splitting hairs, sorry. I realize that mediareport probably meant to say "Is anybody here still seriously equating limiting ones' choice of financial planner to a gay person with bigotry?"

In which case: yeah, I still think so. But that's just a hypothetical strawman that meatbomb tossed up, not the actual situation in the AskMe question. What the asker of the actual AskMe question is trying to do, unlike meatbomb's mischaracterization, is not bigotry.

See, isn't it fun arguing about meatbomb's straw man mischaracterization and the actual question in AskMe as if they were the same thing? We should do this again.

Oh, wait, that's what we do already in like 1/3 of our giant fracasses!
posted by bugbread at 7:45 PM on March 3, 2007

But that's just a hypothetical strawman that meatbomb tossed up

Considering it came up a few times from different people, I respectfully disagree. Indeed, I have to wonder why you are so generous with your interpretation of Meatbomb's question, yet seem determined to continue to characterize the anonymous poster's question in an unnecessarily ambiguous light.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:05 PM on March 3, 2007

Jesus, bugbread.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 PM on March 3, 2007

Jesus, bugbread.

Agreed. Anything further along these lines I'll interpret as deliberate FUD. And honestly, I really think you need to ask yourself about your motives in obfuscating what's at issue here.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:42 PM on March 3, 2007

And honestly, I really think you need to ask yourself about your motives in obfuscating what's at issue here.

You've got to be fucking kidding.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:09 PM on March 3, 2007

If you can't understand why a gay person might want to patronize gay services, and what makes that different from a straight person not wanting to patronize gay services, I can't help you.

I can understand both former and latter, but not what makes the former acceptable and the latter unacceptable. Either you support equal rights, or you support unequal rights. There's no nuance about it.

You've got to be fucking kidding.

What, someone dared express anything other than overwhelming agreement? RAISE THE HOMOPHOBIA P.C. ALERT LEVEL TO RED!!!
posted by Krrrlson at 11:06 PM on March 3, 2007

There's no nuance about it.

*laughs*

Of course not. No nuance at all.
posted by mediareport at 11:25 PM on March 3, 2007

Too much fucking nuance.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:43 AM on March 4, 2007

Discrimination against straight people isn't a big deal, so it doesn't matter whether the asker was doing that or not.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:00 AM on March 4, 2007

Blazecock Pileon writes "Considering it came up a few times from different people, I respectfully disagree."

Huh? So you think that the asker really was asking for only a gay accountant, and not a gay or gay friendly accountant?

Blazecock Pileon writes "Indeed, I have to wonder why you are so generous with your interpretation of Meatbomb's question, yet seem determined to continue to characterize the anonymous poster's question in an unnecessarily ambiguous light."

Ok, are you guys trying to make this more confusing and complex than it is?! What the hell is going on?!

Questioner in AskMe makes a reasonable question. Great. No bigotry. No bad. Not the best phrasing, but it's all cool.
Meatbomb totally distorts what the asker asked, in order to make him seem like a bigot.
I say "The asker of the AskMe question asked a reasonable, non-bigotted question. Not the best phrasing, but probably not bigoted. Meatbomb, however, totally misrepresented that question. Meatbomb's hypothetical bigotry is, in fact, bigotry, but Meatbomb's little hypothetical callout is a total misrepresentation of the actual question in Askme."

And now you're saying I'm generous to Meatbomb?! I'm saying "The asker used bad phrasing, but it was probably just a slip of the tongue, and I certainly doubt he's being bigoted. Meatbomb, on the other hand, is totally distorting what the asker asked." That's being generous to Meatbomb?! What would I have to do to not be generous to him, go to his house and beat him up?

adamgreenfield writes "Anything further along these lines I'll interpret as deliberate FUD. And honestly, I really think you need to ask yourself about your motives in obfuscating what's at issue here."

Are you all on crack?! There are two issues here. I'm trying to clarify them. And as much as you all insist that the issue is so damn clear, the fact that you keep disagreeing with me whenever I say "You're right", and that you keep accusing me of supporting Meatbomb when I'm saying "his argument is a strawman" indicates that, either this issue isn't so damn clear, or you're trying to start shit on purpose. And I can't figure out why that is. I've thought about it, and it isn't clicking.

Look, it's straightforward. I don't know how to make it more clear.

1) Asker asks A.
2) Meatbomb says "Don't you think it's a bad thing that the asker said B?"
3) I'm saying "Yes, B is bad. But the asker didn't ask B. He asked A. And A is not bad."

There. Clear enough? FUD free enough? Non-obfuscatory enough? The whole damn thing in three lines. If you understand those three lines, but disagree that those three lines are what has happened here, then, well, fine, we agree to disagree, and everything's cool. End of story, smiles all around. If you don't understand those three lines, I really don't know what to say. I can't think of how to make it easier. If you find them to be FUD or obfuscatory or the like, again, I really don't know what I can do, and I suspect you've just got some kind of mental block where you aren't going to accept anything I say no matter how I phrase it.
posted by bugbread at 3:24 AM on March 4, 2007

And if you don't want to read that big block of text, then, in short:

If you're annoyed at Meatbomb, and not at the question asker, then I agree with you. Please feel to get all angry at me for agreeing with you.
posted by bugbread at 3:25 AM on March 4, 2007

mathowie writes: I can imagine having to meet an accountant for the first time and on top of all the weirdness about money, you'd have to tell them you're gay.

Mayor Curley resonds: You have an odd relationship with your accountant. My financial planner never hears about what I do with my sexual organs.

Tuwa responds: Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you skim the thread and come up with a snappy one-liner?

I'd go with deliberately obtuse. I don't think snappy one-liners are this Curley fellow's forte.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:36 AM on March 4, 2007

Either you support equal rights, or you support unequal rights.

And while we're at it, cancer patients have some major nerve getting treatment at an oncology ward. If they don't see piano tuners, tarot card readers and taxi drivers to get medical care (in that order), they're keeping black folks from eating. Apparently.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:03 AM on March 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

Ah, I forgot the part about my agenda.

It's simple. I enjoy debate. But I enjoy debate based on disagreement, not on mutual misunderstanding of eachothers' statements. It's the same reason I could never watch Three's Company when I was a kid. So when I see a lot of people disagreeing, but their disagreement is based on misunderstanding eachother, I try to help clarify the situation. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes (ok, a lot of the time) I get accused of being pedantic (probably true). This is the first time I can remember being accused of trying to obfuscate the issue, though, which is why my responses are getting so emotional.

And that's it. No agenda past that. Browsing through my comment history will bear this out. I'm just an anal, pedantic guy who doesn't like when he misunderstands other people, and doesn't like when they misunderstand eachother. It's probably why my comments are always so damn long: I don't want people to misunderstand what I'm saying.
posted by bugbread at 4:07 AM on March 4, 2007

bugbread: I actually think we agree. I just see this thread slightly differently.

1) Asker asks A? B? Unlear.
2) Meatbomb says "Is it OK to ask racist sounding B?"
3) Tonnes of people jump out to say that "No, it is obvious he said A, he said A." while others say "B is fine for gays" and yet others say "Meatbomb is deliberately obtuse for thinking it could possibly be B"
4)Bugbread saying "Yes, B is bad. But the asker didn't ask B. He asked A. And A is not bad."

On point 4 we agree on sentences 1 and 4, sir. But the line "I would be more comfortable speaking with someone gay," irks me in the same way "I would be more comfortable speaking with someone white," does.
posted by Meatbomb at 4:37 AM on March 4, 2007

Here we need an audio segue to the Animals' : "Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!"

Or Elvis Costello's cover version, take your pick.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:44 AM on March 4, 2007

I just copied this thread into Word and replaced the word "gay" with "furry" and it's the funniest motherfucking thing I've ever read.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:32 AM on March 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

I enjoy debate.

Yeah, but this isn't your high school's Rhetoric Team. Debating for the sake of debating is one of the two most annoying habits known to humankind.

But I enjoy debate based on disagreement, not on mutual misunderstanding of eachothers' statements. It's the same reason I could never watch Three's Company when I was a kid.

Boy, your life must be one long laff riot, then. Are you unable to distinguish between circumstances where the "mutual misunderstanding of each other's statements" is tragic (like, oh, when it confronts North and South Korea across a Panmunjeom bargaining table) and where it's the very bedrock of comedy (Clouseau asking the man if his dog bites)?

Either way, I think you'll grant me that when one party has an actual, committed position on something, and someone else steps in to open up "debate" on the question more or less for the hell of it, the first person's most likely going to be irritated with the second.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:39 AM on March 4, 2007

I want to apologize to the people I offended. I didn't realize that Dr. King's stuff about judging people by the color of their character was allegorical. Who knew that you were just supposed to pick and choose the stuff that's convenient for you out of civil rights like it was the Bible?
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:40 AM on March 4, 2007

But the line "I would be more comfortable speaking with someone gay," irks me in the same way "I would be more comfortable speaking with someone white," does.

No gay friends, huh? And not likely to have any, I'm guessing.

Man, there's some serious... lack of understanding (to avoid inflammatory phrasing) going on here.
posted by languagehat at 6:43 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

I didn't realize that Dr. King's stuff about judging people by the color of their character was allegorical

I had a response for this comment, but I'm too busy right now with my gay accountant. We need to find out if I can claim the cost of digging up Dr. King's corpse as a tax deduction. April 15 is coming up quick and race baiting ain't cheap.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:53 AM on March 4, 2007

I'm purposefully making my comment more ambiguous than it has to be, because I'm still wrestling with the issue, but here goes:

I've noticed that minorities in this country, especially first generation who came from outside lands, tend to be far more communitarian than Americans born and brought up here. But, IMHO, this communitarianism comes at a price, which is isolationism. There are of course good reasons to be strongly communitarian, including shared cultural values and a sense of pride of one's origins. And I've noticed that the isolationism is most practically seen in the form of an us vs. them, i.e. patronizing those establishments that are owned or run by those who share your ethnic background or cultural values.

Americans do this too, but (I think) in more secular, idea-based ways. Like patronizing places that promote charities you agree with, or are run by people who share your political views, or share your environmental beliefs. This is primarily because, as Americans, people see themselves as already part of the majority. Second and third generation immigrants fall into this category; sadly, they sometimes suffer the consequences of being easily identified as "foreign" because of their skin color.

Where I'm going with this is I think that gay and lesbians fall into the same category as first generation immigrants because often they don't have gay parents. So they come out, all alone, seeking to find a community. And in doing so, they also isolate themselves, because they don't know who to trust. And here's the kicker for me: while I understand and appreciate this perspective (my parents came to the US in their 20s and I was born and raised here), it also smacks of cultural isolationism and, sometimes, elitism. (From what I've seen, Jews suffer a similar fate as well.)

It's complicated, but there are my two cents.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:00 AM on March 4, 2007

I don't believe that the post should be deleted, but I do wonder how people would respond to a post that went something like this:

As a white person, I sometimes find black people are unreasonably angry at people of my race, and I don't want to have to deal with that sort of attitude. Also, we white folks tend to have a lot more money than most black people, so I need advice from an accountant who is used to dealing with people who have loads of money, not broke-ass people who face a very different set of financial problems. Finally, I think it's important to try and do business with members of my community (ie, other white folks) therefore, can somebody please point me at a white or a white-friendly accountant? Caveat: if there's a black accountant out there who will save me a mountain of money, I'd be happy to consider them instead.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:10 AM on March 4, 2007

I wonder, why do you believe "gay"/"straight" and "white"/"black" have the same relationship in society, such that you can freely use them interchangeably with no difference in meaning?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:39 AM on March 4, 2007

languagehat: sad to see this sort of reaction from you in this thread. I always respect your intellectual vigour and willingness to engage in substantive debate. In this thread, in marked contrast, you've got nothing but hand waving, "you'll just never understand", "you must not have any gay friends"... empty dramatic bullshit. I expect much better of you.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2007

metafilter: this isn't your high school's rhetoric team
posted by pyramid termite at 8:02 AM on March 4, 2007

Meatbomb, with all due respect, you don't get to call for "intellectual vigour" while decrying "hand waving" and "empty dramatic bullshit" after opening a thread with the white supremacy card.

You want substance? Here's substance. I'm a gay guy who moved to a red state with my partner so he could go to school. The school's insurance program won't cover me. When we went to buy a car, we couldn't get both of our names on the registration. After a year at my job up here, my insurance was restructured to take away private benefits and replace them with federal benefits--none of which will cover my partner. So now I'M the bad guy if I try and search out insurance or tax advice or financial help of any kind from someone who might, you know, deign to acknowledge the fact that gay people exist?

This thread is really fucking killing me.
posted by bcwinters at 8:05 AM on March 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

crush racism an sexism forever March 3, 2007 7:42 AM Subscribe

crush racism an sexism forever
March 3, 2007 7:42 AM Subscribe