Why do gay rights groups use such a feminine flag?

Dudes, stop and think for a change. The rainbow is just normal light which we percieve as "white" broken down into its different wave lengths, thus "colors."

You mix the whole spectrum of hetero, homo, bi or whatever and you come up with the neutral lu,pen of humanity. Not that hard a concept to grasp, if you think about it.

It is a symbol of inclusiveness. If you are not an intrusive element, like kiddy fiddlers, rapists, necrophiliacs or animal abusers, you're one of us and we will allow you the dignity of your uniqueness.

I, as a pretty consistant hetero, have no need to feel marginalized.

 

Doesn't get any more stupid-funny than that!

 

Refracted light is so feminine.

 

OMG - It's the gift that keeps on giving!

 

Stop - you're killing me!

This thread is all about perceptions. And I perceive it as a hilarious example of things to avoid if one doesn't wish to be perceived as a complete idiot.

 

Well, there's the problem in a nutshell.

 

Now to be serious for a moment. First, the history of the rainbow flag used by gay groups:

There were originally eight colored strips, symbolizing as follows:

Hot pink - sexuality
Red - life
Orange - healing
Yellow - the sun
Green - nature
Turquoise - magic/art
Indigo - serenity/harmony
Violet - spirit

The flag caught on quickly after a few of the first handmade flags were used in the 1978 "Gay Freedom Day" parade in San Francisco. The hot pink color was dropped when the flags went into mass production because the manufacturer didn't have it readily available. There are varying accounts of how it thereafter went from the remaining seven stripes to just six.

Are these 'feminine' concepts? Why should they be restricted to be the domain of women? Does the originator of this thread not understand that 'gay rights' doesn't just mean male homosexuals, but lesbians as well? Rather telling that the complaints of the opening post are propped up by stereotypes of effeminate men. Misogynist, much? Also telling that the swastika used by the Nazis was trotted out. The clear intent was to be inflammatory.

How something looks is really a description of how we perceive it, and in the case of something like a flag, what it symbolizes to us. But ultimately a flag is just a piece of colored cloth, and colors are just refracted light. Neither is 'feminine' or 'masculine'. We assign them those values based on our perceptions, which are in turn based on our experience within a given culture.

Take for example the use of black to symbolize mourning in western cultures, while in some eastern cultures the color of mourning is white. Neither color symbolizes anything without that being a matter of perceptions that have arisen within a specific culture or having been adopted by another.

To conclude, rainbows are not feminine. If the thread originator perceives rainbows and gay men to be feminine, and further thinks femininity provides an excuse for denigration, then I suppose he or she is entitled to that asinine opinion, and to make himself or herself look like a buffoon by arguing that gay men are somehow to blame for that perception by using a rainbow flag to symbolize a movement that also includes gay women (aka lesbians).

 

none of those have anything to do with homosexuality, except sexuality of course but that's obviously something wierd to go with if want contrast with hetero, and that's bothering me. To me, it sounds like they just picked stuff they though sounded cool, like magic and healing, spirit and nature.. yeah, that's pretty gay alright.

 

There is no "they" here. The symbolism was chosen by it's designer, Gilbert Baker.

The 'gay community' did not take a vote to make the rainbow flag 'our symbol'. Baker and Cleve Jones presented the idea of using the flag as part of the "Gay Freedom Day" to the organizing committee for that event, and people seem to have just adopted it thereafter. It would probably be fair to say that many gay people have no idea that there were originally eight colors instead of the six in the commercially produced version, and likewise that they probably are unaware of what Baker envisioned those colors to symbolize.

And I will just point out that the color symbolizing sexuality (hot pink) was dropped from the flag pretty early on.

And I'm reminded why I ignored your trolling ass. See my signature.

 

Your point is what? The flag is a stupid idea.

In all honesty if 99% of gay people were semi-attractive lesbians I don't think as many straight males would have a problem with the movement - however when you allow your movement to be associated with feminine stereotypes this naturally turns a lot of straight people off.

Actually no, they are based on the natural order. Bright diverse colors like pink, purple, etc are feminine colors. Darker or neutral colors like navy blue, etc are masculine colors.

There are scientific studies that back this up too - ex. the most sexually arousing clothing color to women is dark blue - while men are more sexually aroused by colors like pink, etc.

Men should be masculine, women should be feminine - those who purposely bend the rules just for the sake of 'defying stereotypes' and getting attention usually aren't as content in life, kind of like a fish out of water.

So the same is true of a swastika then.

None of this pedantic crap matters - this is what people think of when they see a rainbow flag:



If you're going to try to argue that this isn't femine based on some half-assed semantics game, well not worth anyone's time to point out why you're wrong then, lol

 

Yeah, i mean "nature", "the sun", "magic/art", "serenity/harmony"? Who's seriously trying to argue that it isn't feminine, or at least hippy.

Why not something like "courage, honor, loyalty, freedom, or death" if they wanted to appeal more to the 95% of males who aren't stereotypically gay?

 

You're welcome to your asinine opinion. Point being, it wasn't designed to appease our detractors.

Which I suppose speaks to the shallowness of some people?

Because straight people are all misogynists. Got it. /end sarcasm.

Do those studies control for cultural factors? Can you explain why the colors associated with mourning are different across cultures?

Regardless, I'm still having trouble finding a reason to care. It's clear you have a problem with gay people. Should we be surprised that you would attack a symbol of their movement? Not in the least.

People should be themselves, not forced to conform to rigid stereotypes. Clearly we have very different world views.

It still holds its original meaning in some cultures. Pretty hard to separate it from its history as the symbol of the Nazis in those where it had no previous positive history. The intent behind presenting it here, to draw a comparison between gay people and Nazis, was clear enough. No point in trying to deny that.

You're still welcome to your asinine opinion.

Actually, you're the one with whom there is not point in trying to have a reasonable discussion. Are we done?

 

Feminine, no. Hippy, yes - as the designer freely admits. Like I said, most gay people probably have no idea what the designer intended it to represent. Many see it as a symbol of the diversity present within the unity of the movement, just as light can be split into separate colors.

Like I said, it wasn't intended to appeal to our detractors. Broken record, much?

 

Nothing 'mysogenistic' about it, unless you're saying that those people want women to grow beards and shave their heads out of hatred of all things 'feminine' Some people just want to preserve the natural order and keep positive male/female roles, rather than encourage destroying natural roles just for the sake of forced 'diversity'.

 

Not entirely sure, however men and women's brains developed differently. Men are more left-brained and women are more right brained, so it'd make sense that 'loud colors' would be perceived as more feminine. Likewise masculine attracts feminine and vice versa - so more neutral colors would be considered more 'attractive' to most women, than a guy wearing a rainbow or polka dot shirt. So you should blame evolution for 'gender roles' as much as anything else.

 

I don't dispute that men and women are different. However, you're mistaking the expression of gender under cultural influences for some sort of natural imperative, like 'blue is for boys, pink is for girls'. It's ridiculous.

 

Maybe if they used something like this as their logo then gay rights groups would get more support from the average straight male:

 

His snobbish, conceited, and condescending attitude reveals that this movement originated in the elitist prep schools. Whenever a tiny group like this has so much power, influence, and media attention, it has to be backed up by Daddy's Money. Such anti-democratic, anti-American aristocrats are spoiled rotten and their powerful fathers indulge in their every wish in order to buy their love. The greatest hidden evil in America is birth privileges, which must be abolished if we are ever to have a future.

Their fathers are either nasty or never home, addicted to workoholism and chasing every dollar they can get their greedy hands on. Alternatively, they are dominated by their trophy wives. Both lead Junior into wanting to become a women. Such Mama's Boy spoiled brats always expect us to listen to them as if they weren't disgusting freaks. That's because of the way they were brought up to think they were automatically better than everybody else because their Daddies made money and they must have inherited superior genes. They also have a "born to rule" attitude and think any disagreement with their self-indulgent, self-glorifying claims about their sickness is like a buck private criticizing a general to his face.

In gay pioneer Gore Vidal's autobiography, Palimpsest, he described how homosexuality ran rampant at his prep school back in the 1930s. At that time, in the high schools of real Americans, I doubt if the teenagers even knew what homosexuality was. In the 60s, I certainly didn't. We had these three extremely effeminate students whom I always considered to be just weird. I made no connection to their sexuality.

 

Pink actually used to be a boy's color a century ago. It was considered more masculine because it was a loud and dominating color, and blue was considered feminine because it was darker and not as loud.

Things like that change and are largely cultural.

 

You're getting pink confused with red.

I'm still not sure what your point is other than to play 'dumb' to things that don't really need a whole lot of explanation.

Not as much as you might think.

 

How am I playing dumb? Blue actually used to be considered a feminine color.

 

Light or dark blue?

 

Is this seriously a conversation right now? The rainbow flag includes lesbians and gays. What would you want, some black flag with a big green X in the middle or something? I guarantee you would be writing a post about how the flag is too masculine for lesbians and they aren't helping their cause.

Its a rainbow, get over it. If you think of dancing ponies and puking flowers (from your own picture, its actually quite gross) every time you see a rainbow flag, that's your problem.

 

Quick answer: the equal sign isn't a gay symbol, it's a human symbol; neither creates or perpetuates stereotypes. The media does.
mod edit>>>discuss the topic