Friday, October 26, 2007

Survey Slashes Stereotypes

One way of looking at the struggle over the MCPS sex-ed curriculum is to note that one side is trying to perpetuate a stereotype of gays and lesbians, while the other side is trying to move beyond it. With that in mind, we may learn something from a recent survey.

The Chicago Tribune has it this time:
SAN JOSE, Calif. - To judge from the images on network television and corporate advertising, lesbians and gay men share the same demographic niche: affluent, educated, urban -- and usually white.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong, says a new national demographic study that suggests lesbians and gays are more likely to be older, "responsible" suburbanites sharing a mortgage payment and listening to country music than young turks partying in the Castro or Chelsea.

"We wanted to bust some stereotypes," said David Morse, president and chief executive of New American Dimensions, a Los Angeles market research company that joined forces with San Francisco-based Asterix Group, a brand strategy firm, in an attempt to paint a more nuanced portrait of the nation's gays and lesbians.

Some findings surprised even the researchers:

African-Americans and Latinos were more comfortable expressing their gay identity than whites, although their gay identity was not the most important part of who they are. And, while whites were more likely to be in live-together relationships than Latinos or blacks, they were less likely to include children in their family plans.

Gays and lesbians are increasingly open and honest about their sexuality. Two-thirds agreed with the statement, "Everyone knows I'm gay."

A majority of lesbians and gay men live outside big cities, with about one-third of lesbians and one-quarter of gay men living in small towns or rural areas.

The average age people realized their sexual orientation was 15, but it was younger for men than for women. Gays, lesbians far more diverse than media portrays, study finds

This is great. A whole bunch of stereotypes are blown away in this survey, which by the way you can read HERE.
Corporate America frequently stumbles when it attempts to sell its products to gays, the study's authors say. They blamed a one-size-fits-all marketing approach.

"It would be wrong for marketers to think that this was a rich and white, male, partying group," said Christine Lehtonen, president of Asterix.

BTW, I'd like to use this opportunity to introduce some cognitive dissonance by pointing out that this survey exists so that businesses can exploit the gay market more effectively. Capitalists want to sell stuff, gay people buy stuff, it is in the interest of the business to understand what kind of consumers they are and what kind of stuff they'd like to buy. This is your free enterprise system at work.
The study was based on more than 900 in-person and online surveys conducted across the country in June. While survey respondents were predominantly white, nearly one in five were black, Latino or Asian. An equal number of men and women responded.

The diversity the researchers found mirrors what demographers using U.S. Census Bureau and other demographic data have reported about the nation's gay and lesbian population. But it doesn't reflect the stereotypes -- wealthy, urban and white -- that continue to be broadcast in advertising and TV shows, said Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles school who specializes in America.

"Gay men actually make less money than other men. And every time I say that, people say, 'What?'" Gates said. " This stereotype of gay men being really wealthy -- the whole ' Will and Grace' kind of stereotype -- it's just absolutely not true."

While gay or lesbian characters are no longer a novelty on TV, gay characters remain predominantly white. There is only one regular gay minority character on broadcast TV in the 2007-08 prime-time schedule, a recent survey by Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation found.

The New American Dimensions/Asterix study also looked at how lesbians and gays reacted to TV and print advertising, and studied brand loyalties to cars and other products. Among the winners: Subaru, Budweiser and Yahoo, which was favored by a nearly 2-1 ratio over Google.

Gay people use Yahoo for Internet searches, over Google? Wow, I didn't see that one coming.
The study classified about 12 percent of the study's respondents as "closeted." They were more likely to be single, older, live in small towns, read Reader's Digest and People magazine, and drive a Chevrolet. Only about one in five say their sexual orientation is an important part of their identity.

At the other end of the study's spectrum were the "super gays," who were almost universally open about their sexual orientation, and tended to be highly educated, affluent, be in couples, live in large cities and listen to classical music.

But while highly visible groups like the "super gays" tend to set the image of what gay life is like in America, Morse said they represent a minority of the entire community. "Sixty percent of this market is to a certain extent invisible," he said.

Lehtonen said although the study found a great amount of diversity among the segments, some of the stereotypical divides didn't appear.

"I expected to find more differences by gender, male and female," she said. "And primarily, there weren't a ton of differences."

Gates said the New American Dimensions/Asterix Group study differs from other marketing studies, in that there was not a primary focus on the white, male, affluent demographic.

"I do think," Gates said, "this appears to present the gay community in a way that's somewhat different and unique, in that it's focusing a little more intentionally on a broader gay demographic, and arguing that there isn't in some respects 'a gay demographic.'"

This kind of information is very useful. Turns out some gay people did not have a member in the Village People. Shocking.

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Pledge of Allegiance (written by a public school kid in Arizona)

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most
public schools anymore Because the word "God" is mentioned....
A kid in Arizona wrote the attached

NEW School prayer :
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

October 26, 2007 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

School prayer is illegal because it violates the First Amendment, which was adopted in 1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

October 26, 2007 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"School prayer is illegal because it violates the First Amendment, which was adopted in 1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress doesn't run public schools and never made a law requiring prayer in schools.

So how was school prayer unconstitutional?

October 27, 2007 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This demographic study by a marketing firm states two very important reasons all middle and high school health education classes should include information about sexual orientation:

-Realization of gay identity on average comes at age 13 for men and 17 for women.

-Nearly two-thirds of gays and lesbians report experiencing stereotyping and discrimination.

All kids need to learn that discriminating against people with different gender identities and sexual orientations is just as wrong as discriminating against people of different faiths or members of different ethnic or racial groups.

October 27, 2007 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This demographic study by a marketing firm states two very important reasons all middle and high school health education classes should include information about sexual orientation:

-Realization of gay identity on average comes at age 13 for men and 17 for women."

Adolescence is a confusing time for kids. Many go through stages. If they go to classes implying that homosexuality is innate, the danger is they may become solidified in this type of lifestyle.

"-Nearly two-thirds of gays and lesbians report experiencing stereotyping and discrimination."

Way too broad a statement. What does this mean? Often, in these types of "surveys", it means any type of suggestion that homosexuality is not acceptable.

"All kids need to learn that discriminating against people with different gender identities and sexual orientations is just as wrong as discriminating against people of different faiths or members of different ethnic or racial groups."

Schools shouldn't be teaching whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. This should be left to individual conscience.

October 27, 2007 9:20 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Just as belief in evolution should be left to individual conscience?

October 27, 2007 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrat stalling tactics run out of steam.

Ten months after he was nominated by President Bush, the U.S. Senate today confirmed Judge Leslie Southwick’s nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 59-38

Since January, Senate Democrats have tried to portray Southwick as homophobic, based on a few appeals-court decisions. Liberal special-interest groups also have done their best to destroy Southwick's exemplary reputation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Democrats did not handle the confirmation process unfairly.

Psychologists say Democrats have a subconcious desire to lose power.

October 27, 2007 11:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's official, gang!

Almost twice as many Americans believe in ghosts as believe the Democratic-led Congress is doing a good job:

"Gallup reports that public perception of Congress is the lowest since polling began in 1974, and, at 18% approval, ties the rating in March 1992"

Psychologists suspect Democrats have a deep subconcious desire to return to minority status.

October 28, 2007 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they go to classes implying that homosexuality is innate

There you go again, lying about what the curriculum says and singling out homosexuality. The curriculum does not say only one orientation is innate; it says sexual orientation is innate and it defines "sexual orientation [as] straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual, a person’s emotional and
romantic attraction toward members of the same sex, opposite sex, or both sexes (Holt)."


One sentence in the Holt resource used in 10th grade states:

"Sexual orientation and gender identity are deeply personal, innate, and complex parts of one's personality that define how people see themselves as individuals and in romantic relationships."

And the 8th grade, one sentence in the teachers' script reads:

"Sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality."

Anon has never complained that straight kids will hear their orientaion is innate. It seems he only wants LGBT teens to be told their orientation is not innate.

October 28, 2007 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The correct term is sexual preference and no evidence has suggested it is innate.

Kids shouldn't be taught it is since most scientists don't think it is.

October 28, 2007 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1 Anonymous said...
2 Anonymous said...
3 Anonymous said...
4 Anonymous said...
5 Anonymous said...
6 Anonymous said...
7 Anonymous said...
__

The price of milk, french fries, and the kitchen sink! How can you live with yourself?

October 28, 2007 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon the Correct:

"Schools shouldn't be teaching whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. This should be left to individual conscience."

Dana Beyer, M.D.:

"Just as belief in evolution should be left to individual conscience?"

The acceptability of homosexuality is completely a moral question.

Whether evolution is true is a scientific question, albeit with moral implications.

October 29, 2007 5:39 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

No, Anon, sexual orientation is not a moral question, it is a biological fact. You can rant all you want, but nothing will change the fact that you and I and everyone else has a sexual orientation (and a gender identity, as well).

October 29, 2007 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, Anon, sexual orientation is not a moral question, it is a biological fact. You can rant all you want, but nothing will change the fact that you and I and everyone else has a sexual orientation"

You're wrong, Doctor. Sexual preference, which you call "orientation", is defined as sexual attraction to one gender. Yet, by your own admission, they are those with no preference. For purposes of propaganda, you term this another type of "orientation", but it is, in actuality, a lack of "orientation" or more accurately, preference.

Moreover, there is reason to believe, that without moral, social and religious influences, this becomes the default position. Witness, the ancient Greeks where bisexuality was common.

October 30, 2007 5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sexual preference, which you call "orientation", is defined as sexual attraction to one gender.

You are wrong on two counts. First, the entire medical profession refers to this aspect of personality as "sexual orientation," while you prefer "preference." Your preference is telling. Second, bisexuals are attracted to both genders.

You need to enroll in the new and improved MCPS 8th grade health class so you can finally get these facts straight.

Sexual orientation—straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual, a person’s emotional and
romantic attraction toward members of the same sex, opposite sex, or both sexes


http://www.teachthefacts.org/curriculumdocs/Grade8-Sec1.pdf

October 30, 2007 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A compass that points in every direction is not a compass, it's an imitation. If you are attracted to all genders, that's not a preference, it's a lack of preference.

You could try enrolling in an English class.

October 30, 2007 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should try enrolling in a science class. Bisexuals exist. Get over it.

Oh, and thanks for finally getting the name right, Anon.

October 30, 2007 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never said they didn't. I said since they do exist and they don't discriminate by gender, they don't have a preference. Lack of preference is not a type of preference, it's a lack of preference. Further, it's entirely possible that in a society of sexual amoralism, these preferences would be seen as fleeting and not an integral part of one's personality any more than one's favorite brand of pants or beer. Simply put, science hasn't proved that same gender fixation is anything more than an inherent psychosis.

October 30, 2007 3:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous said "Adolescence is a confusing time for kids. Many go through stages. If they go to classes implying that homosexuality is innate, the danger is they may become solidified in this type of lifestyle.".

No straight kid is confused about their sexuality. Some gay kids are because they are only shown examples of heterosexuals and never hear about the existence of gays and its a shock to them when they experience something they've been lead to believe does not exist or that is horrible and bad - a situation hateful people like you would like to perpetuate.

Anonymous said ""-Nearly two-thirds of gays and lesbians report experiencing stereotyping and discrimination."

Way too broad a statement. What does this mean? Often, in these types of "surveys", it means any type of suggestion that homosexuality is not acceptable".

If students were taunting Christian kids and saying Christianity is not acceptable, that its wrong, that its a sin, that you'll be eternally tortured if you are a Christian you'd be screaming bloody murder. That is discrimination and oppression whether its against a gay kid or a Christian one ( or a gay Christian one).

Anonymous said "Schools shouldn't be teaching whether homosexuality is acceptable or not.".

What?! Just a few seconds ago you were whining about how we shouldn't call it discrimination when people say gayness is unacceptable - obviously you're lying and what you reall mean is that schools should feel free to teach that gayness is unacceptable but not that it is acceptable. Once again this is the sort of contradiction you like to hide from by being anonymous - unfortunately for you this contradiction is in the same post so its more readily apparent than when you do it between posts.

Anonymous said "The correct term is sexual preference and no evidence has suggested it is innate."

The studies by Shidlo and Schroeder, Spitzer, and Yarhouse and Jones shows that virtually no gays can change their sexual desires from gay to straight thus indicating clearly that it is an orientation, not a preference.

Anonymous said "Moreover, there is reason to believe, that without moral, social and religious influences, this becomes the default position. Witness, the ancient Greeks where bisexuality was common.".

Ridiculous. Bisexuality was no more common in ancient Greece than it is today or in any other society or time. The only thing that varies is the openness of gays and bisexuals withing society. What your claiming is that sexuality is an blank slate upon which society writes the orientation of its citizens. If that were the case one would be just as likely to be gay as straight absent any dictating social messages as to what orientation should be. Obviously there have never been any societies at any time where gayness was equally prevalent to straightness despite the existence of many societies where being gay wasn't rejected. If sexual orientation was a blank slate as your suggesting there would have been some societies where most people were gay because there would have been nothing preventing this other than arbitrary social teaching which could go either way depending on the society. Roughly the same percentages of gays have existed throughout all societies across history proving that most people were destined to be straight and a minority destined to be gay.

October 30, 2007 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said since they do exist and they don't discriminate by gender, they don't have a preference.

Hey, Anon might get this yet...

That's right! They don't have a preference, but they do have a sexual orientation -- they are "bisexual."

October 30, 2007 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They don't have an orientation either. They can go in either direction.

October 31, 2007 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They can go in either direction.

Precisely. That is their orientation.

October 31, 2007 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No straight kid is confused about their sexuality. Some gay kids are"

This attitude displays the epitome of the problem. Telling kids that if they're confused, they're gay. It's a cult tactic. If you think you might be one of us, you are. And there is no way out.

Unbelievable.

"because they are only shown examples of heterosexuals and never hear about the existence of gays and its a shock to them when they experience something they've been lead to believe does not exist or that is horrible and bad - a situation hateful people like you would like to perpetuate."

They may have been told its horrible and bad but to say they haven't heard of gays or have been told they don't exist is ridiculous.

It's a ridiculous Randi moment.

"If students were taunting Christian kids and saying Christianity is not acceptable, that its wrong, that its a sin, that you'll be eternally tortured if you are a Christian you'd be screaming bloody murder. That is discrimination and oppression whether its against a gay kid or a Christian one ( or a gay Christian one)."

Actually Christian kids are sometimes taunted and discriminated against. Can we have a class advocating Christianity now?

"What?! Just a few seconds ago you were whining about how we shouldn't call it discrimination when people say gayness is unacceptable - obviously you're lying and what you reall mean is that schools should feel free to teach that gayness is unacceptable but not that it is acceptable. Once again this is the sort of contradiction you like to hide from by being anonymous"

People like you who don't think about what they hear probably see contradictions everywhere. I don't think schools should teach whether homogaeity is acceptable or not. If someone holds that view personally, that may be discrimination, but most think people are entitled to that opinion. The survey is too broad. Discrimination is not always bad.

"The studies by Shidlo and Schroeder, Spitzer, and Yarhouse and Jones shows that virtually no gays can change their sexual desires from gay to straight thus indicating clearly that it is an orientation, not a preference."

Many times more are bisexual than homosexual, suggesting that those who believe they have no choice may be victim to the cult's rhetoric.

"Bisexuality was no more common in ancient Greece than it is today or in any other society or time."

Actually, it was common among a certain class. Here's a wikipedia excerpt:

"The earliest Western documents concerning same-sex relationships are derived from ancient Greece. They depict a world in which relationships with women and relationships with youths were the essential foundation of a normal man's love life. Same-sex relationships were a social institution variously constructed over time and from one city to another. The practice, a system of relationships between an adult male and an adolescent coming of age, was often valued for its pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control, and occasionally blamed for causing disorder. Plato praised its benefits in his early writings."

"The only thing that varies is the openness of gays and bisexuals withing society."

No, it becomes more prevalent when condoned.

"What your claiming is that sexuality is an blank slate upon which society writes the orientation of its citizens. If that were the case one would be just as likely to be gay as straight absent any dictating social messages as to what orientation should be."

Except that those social, moral and religious factors will always surface because it is perfectly obvious that male and female anatomy and psychology are complementary and that the nuclear family is the basis of stable society and the product of heterosexual relationships.

"Obviously there have never been any societies at any time where gayness was equally prevalent to straightness despite the existence of many societies where being gay wasn't rejected."

See above.

"If sexual orientation was a blank slate as your suggesting there would have been some societies where most people were gay because there would have been nothing preventing this other than arbitrary social teaching which could go either way depending on the society."

Didn't say it was arbitrary or could go either way. The social detriment of homosexuality is self-evident.

"Roughly the same percentages of gays have existed throughout all societies across history proving that most people were destined to be straight and a minority destined to be gay."

No one can agree on an exact number in the present world, much less throughout history.

October 31, 2007 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Precisely. That is their orientation"

No. That's a lack of orientation.

October 31, 2007 9:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home