This is the sort of shit I have been trying to let people know for the last 3 years.
There is no oversight of these groups.

I don't think people are giving money to the HRC so they can make product placement deals for The L Word.

It is like one big incestous corporate bath house.

Of course the ladies that brought this to the attention of the public will never get work again. Queerty will most likely be the only outlet that has the fucking balls to put this information out.

jack jett

HRC's mission is clearly stated as being about LGBT equality. At no point does it mention sweatshops, the environment, war or any other issue. To expect the organization to expand its mission to include every liberal cause under the sun is unrealistic. Have ou gone to the groups working to end sweatshops to demand that they fight for non-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation and gender identity? I bet not.

In response to Bloggernista's post: The point people are making is that HRC's agenda *should* be broader than LGBT equality. Some of us believe that, as important as non-discrimination laws are (and we *do* press for in our work against sweatshops, etc.!), even if your focus is helping out LGBT folks, you should focus on broader economic issues.

A simple example: consider health care and gay/lesbian marriage. Here in Massachusetts, we have gay/lesbian marriage, which affords all kinds of economic benefits to people who do get married (e.g. it's easier to get on your partner's health plan). But what about someone whose partner doesn't have a health plan? Or someone who doesn't have a partner?

bell hooks pointed out long ago (in an explanation of the difference between liberal "feminism" and radical feminism), that fighting narrowly for equality is not just racist and class-biased (because it leaves out the distinctive concerns of non-white women and working-class women), but it is also *thereby* sexist, because it contributes to the distinctive forms of sexism non-white women and working-class women face. To put it a different way, if your conception of feminism is that it is about women gaining equality with men, then what you are working for is really a world in which white professional women are equal to white professional men, black working-class women are equal to black working-class men, etc. But what if white professionals engage in sexist exploitation of women of color? Then your agenda perpetuates this exploitation, and is thereby sexist (and racist, and class-biased).

The same kind of argument works against HRC and its narrow agenda. If we really care about (e.g.) *all* LGBT folks getting access to healthcare, we should fight for universal health care, so that nobody has to have a rich or well-employed partner to marry to get good health care.

Dollars & Sense ran a great article a couple years back about how marriage is essentially part of a privatization scheme, vs. making necessities like health care and retirement *socially guaranteed* benefits. The url is: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0504gluckman.html .
A sample from that article: "[T]here is no reason the 'politics of privatization' cannot expand to include gay families, just as traditional marketing has expanded to include gay men and lesbians as consumers. If a lesbian today lacks health insurance, she'll probably look to government to provide it. She may even join in the movement for single-payer national health insurance. Legalized marriage opens up to her the same private solution that straight people have: find a girlfriend whose job has good benefits and marry her."

What pisses people off about HRC, Bloggernista, is that instead of challenging the politics of privatization that harms (most) LGBT folks (and most everyone else too!), it contributes to it, takes advantage of it, and furthers it--which harms LGBT folks. bell hooks would say (as I'm sure she has!) that this means HRC isn't really about ending homophobia, but ending the distinctive kinds of homophobia well-off white people face.