Recently, a new trend has sprung up in the world of gay rights activism. It’s called glitterbombing, or glittering if you’re trying to eliminate violent connotations.
So far, several presidential candidates (mostly republicans) have been glittered, as well as the former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, and others opposing gay rights.
I’m not quite sure how I feel about this new movement. On the one hand, I think it’s witty and cute. It’s 100% nonviolent, which I am all for, and has the potential to harm virtually no one.
On the other hand, I’m left gawking and thinking “Wait…really!? Glitter!?” I mean come on people, aren’t most supporters of gay rights also supporters of dashing stereotypes and slaying prejudices? There aren’t very many ‘gayer’ stereotypes that this group could have reinforced than a love for all things sparkly and flamboyant. Don’t we want to be taken seriously? These activists are making their position obvious to their opponents, yes, but I personally think that this is a laughable way of doing so. Literally, my first reaction was to laugh! So if they wanted to be taken seriously, I don’t think this was the right way of going about it.
Maybe if the group had done this once, then held a press conference or made a public announcement that apologized if anyone was offended by a little glitter, but then argued their position in a serious way, I would have been more on their side. But this seems a little bit trite for my tastes, especially when we’re approaching election time.
What do you all think?