Blog Action Day 2008: The Culture of Consumption and the Cost of Being Gay

Today. October 15, 2008. Blog Action Day. Your mission should you choose to accept it: blog about poverty.

On its surface, there doesn't seem to be much to connect the issue of gay rights and poverty. There's the stereotypical image of gays and lesbians as wealthy vacationers who, at the drop of a hat, will spring for that last minute weekend trip to Provincetown, Miami Beach, Palm Springs, Ibiza (well, maybe not Ibiza in this economy). There's the uber-marketing done by corporations from Levi's, to Subaru, to the Paris Resorts in Las Vegas, Delta Airlines...even Bridgestone Tires advertises in gay magazines. And these companies market to LGBT people for good reason. At the beginning of 2006, the "value of gay America" (not my language, but that of ABC News) was estimated to be at $610 billion.

$610 billion. That's almost a U.S. government bailout right there.

All of this raises the question, put quite candidly by John Cloud in a September article for the Advocate:

I live in Chelsea; I am out at work; I am out to everyone in my family, all my friends. I don’t think I have to cope with much stigma. And yet not long ago I bought two shirts I didn’t really need, along with a $22 pair of underwear. Twenty-two dollars for underwear? My reserves of self-control had definitely been depleted that day. Or maybe I just wouldn’t feel like myself—a gay man, usually proud, sometimes uncertain, occasionally shallow -- if I wore Hanes.

Which begs the question: Is there something in gay culture that makes people worth less if they're not consuming the right brands? As Cloud notes in his own article, he'd rather eat leftovers each night rather than save money by purchasing Gap Jeans over Dolce & Gabana. (Since when did Gap Jeans become the economical choice? Anyone remember Wrangler or Sonoma?) Moreover, what does this mean for an LGBT community that's being pressured to spend itself into acceptance?

A few statistics. According to Lee Badgett, an economist with the Williams Institute at UCLA, here's what's true about LGBT poverty.

• Of men aged 21-44 y/o, only 2.1 percent of gay men live below the poverty line, while 4.2 percent of straight men of the same age group do.
• Straight women and lesbian women between the ages of 21-44 have about the same rate of living below the poverty line -- about 6 percent.

That last point is interesting, and Badgett puts it: "I would say in terms of defining people’s economic existence, sex is definitely more powerful than sexual orientation." Might that explain why there's no difference in poverty level between straight women and lesbian women?

The numbers above do indicate that gay men are half as likely to be under the poverty level than straight men. But that's misleading for a number of reasons. First, gay men are in just as much debt as anyone else, which is perhaps one of the byproducts of the corporate advertising frenzy toward LGBT people. Second, gay men (really all LGBT people) are worse at saving for their retirement than straight people.

Third, and this is perhaps the most dangerous and difficult point to account for, according to Badgett: Gay people are still more likely to experience discrimination at their workplace (in terms of hiring, promotions, demotions, etc.). In a bad economy, those trends could be more pronounced. In 2005, during a fairly strong economic period in the U.S., 79 percent of heterosexuals favored anti-discrimination measures at their workplace. After the first two quarters of 2008, during what many would consider a very shaky economy, only 46 percent of heterosexuals favored anti-discrimination measures at their workplace. As Velma Dinkley from Scooby Doo might say, "Jinkies! I think there's a connection!"

All of this is to say that today, on a day when many of us in the blogosphere are taking account of poverty and its role on a host of issues, gay rights figures into the equation. On one side, you have the question of whether LGBT culture is a culture of consumption, thus forcing LGBT people to spend unwisely in an effort to keep up or fit in. But on a broader level, the stereotype that all gay people are wealthy and well off is just not accurate, and deserves to be unpacked.

Lastly, one of the dangers with the stereotype that "most LGBT people are wealthy" is that it lets the broader world forget about the populations of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who are most at risk for being in economic trouble. These include "street youth," where studies have found that up to 40 percent identify as LGBT, many having been thrown out of their house (or run away from home) because of their sexual orientation.

Another LGBT population segment at risk of living below the poverty line are LGBT elders. As this post pointed out a few days ago, LGBT elders face rare forms of discrimination in the senior care system, which can often push them to live alone. Since many LGBT elders don't have dependent children or extended families to rely on for financial support, many face economic hardships simply trying to support themselves.

As Gandhi once said, "Poverty is the worst form of violence." It's a great quote, and relevant to us all. But for those looking for a more modern sage, I say go with J.K. Rowling:

Poverty entails fear, and stress, and sometimes depression; it means a thousand petty humiliations and hardships. Climbing out of poverty by your own efforts, that is indeed something on which to pride yourself, but poverty itself is romanticized only by fools.

And that's something we can hopefully all agree on, whether we're straight, gay, lesbian, bi or transgender.