Comments on: HRC is not a membership organization

By: VirgoVisionMedia

VirgoVisionMedia — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:02:01 +0000

big words……i love big words. when you write with ”big words”, people pay attention and assume you’re intelligent (there’s a big word!). sometimes, after i read something, i have to go back and read it again and replace the big words with words i understand. from the article, when i replaced some of the big words i got that the author thinks the HRC doesnot represent a ”members” organization very well. from the comment left by mr. m., the HRC doesnot represent minority men in a sufficient manner. and the last article got on mr. m. for whining like a kid about not being paid attention to.

i have a big word for us all. i invented it when i read up on HRC. NEO-COHESIVENESS. i hope it catches on. sounds like all three of the opinions (there’s another big word that everyone has) i’ve read so far need some of it.

By: Marie Cohn

Marie Cohn — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:27:01 +0000

Mr Andriote, what you seem to lack in maturity you certainly make up for in self-righteousness and a sanctimonious and selfish drive for attention. Poor you. It is hard to imagine that Peter meant for his opinion piece to serve as a springboard for those ready to pile on HRC, and by extension, NGLTF. Yet, you seem to suggest that our great institutions, no matter their failings, should reduce their multiple foci to the single one about which you care most. Each attempts to address inequality in a wide variety of ways, so that they may heighten the awareness of the multitudes. No organization with a single focus can expect to do the same. HRCF, under the leadership of Vic Basile, was a membership organization, and attempted to attract the attention of, seek the support of, and provide sanctuary to many who had yet to find a voice. I remember those days fondly. Likewise, NGLTF, under the leadership of Torie Osborne and her predecessors, recruited many with a slightly more belligerent facade. To suggest that either or both should return to the days when AIDS and people living with it was of a singular grand effort is both short-sighted and archaic. Marriage equality is not, contrary to your assertion, not the single “rallying cry” of either group. It is simply one component of their work that appeals to many. That you are not among the many may suggest that you have come late to the party.

Your two days’ old tweet offering to the highest bidder coverage of #AIDS2012 clarifies your intent and expectations far more than your unflattering complaint against our flagship organizations. You stick with that self-serving objective, and let the adults in the room continue to address the growing number of additional, important interests and concerns shared by our compatriots whose energy and optimism, not anger, continue to drive us forward in our common quest for our numerous shared goals.

By: John-Manuel Andriote

John-Manuel Andriote — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:07:29 +0000

I’m afraid HRC and NGLTF both have forgotten their “roots” in the aspirations of ordinary Americans to be treated with the same dignity, respect, rights and freedoms as all other Americans. Not everyone who is gay–or lesbian, bi, trans, or any other subdivision of personal identity–wants to be married. It’s right and good that those who wish to marry have the legal right to do so. But to privilege “marriage equality” as the presumed “rallying cry” for all LGBT people is preposterous.

What we don’t hear about is the resounding lack of focus by HRC and NGLTF on the ongoing HIV epidemic that continues to overwhelmingly affect gay/bi men of all races in this country. Their spokespeople told me in interviews they rely on HIV-focused organizations to take the lead. Well, those organizations turned their backs on gay/bi men in the 80s as soon as they realized “women and kids” are easier sells to funders and politicians than homosexuals.

Looking at the organizations’ priorities, you wouldn’t know that tens of thousands of gay/bi American men still struggle to access the care and treatment they need to stay alive. You wouldn’t know that, despite the much higher risk for HIV in our community, gay/bi men have been getting short shrift where it comes to taxpayer funding for effective HIV prevention programs.

Why don’t you read about HRC and NGLTF’s work on gay/bi men’s HIV prevention and treatment needs? Because unfortunately many of those living with or at heightened risk for HIV tend to be men of color and with lower incomes–hardly the demographic profile of those who contribute from their disposable income to these organizations.

By: laurelboy2

laurelboy2 — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:05:30 +0000

They want y/our money so they can continue to do nothing with it. They have no shame with their game.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:35:04 +0000

I’ve been in and run non-profits as long as you. The fact is that what you say about “membership” was true perhaps 15 years ago but those somewhat artificial lines have since blurred. HRC obviously runs part of its acquisition program to lapsed donors and requests a membership renewal. Many charities do this: it pragmatic, not a statement of failed policies or indeed a statement of organizational identity at all. Some donors like to perceive themselves as members of a non-profit. They will respond.

By: Newt's Fourth Wife

Newt's Fourth Wife — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:05:59 +0000

“HRC will have to provide something for the younger generation that is tangible — not just the intangibles of advocacy”

You mean the water bottles the offer aren’t good enough for you?

For shame!