Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Assumptions and Homophobia
westrim:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 22 Feb 2011, 04:54 ---
--- Quote from: westrim on 22 Feb 2011, 04:32 ---I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.
--- End quote ---
Who's to say what's core to someone they don't know, though?
--- End quote ---
Oh for crying out loud, stop moving goalposts. We were NOT talking about every single misunderstanding, and we were NOT talking about what people consider core to themselves! We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not, and gave examples of other situations in which reacting negatively would generally be considered normal, ones that are nearly universally considered to be important to self identity, not random stuff like how much of a Potterphile a given person is.
Odin:
Hey, remember when people were going ballistic over other people thinking Padma was black? Same thing.
By pwhodges's argument so far, the people that went ballistic are racist.
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: westrim on 22 Feb 2011, 05:04 ---We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not
--- End quote ---
But consider (starting with your example):
"So you guys are gay, right?"
"How dare you suggest we're like that!"
The response is only meaningful if gay is assumed to be a bad thing, therefore homophobic. So we cannot state a simple rule, but have to consider what is actually said/written.
My other remark was indeed a digression - simply a warning against making assumptions about what other people may consider important.
JackFaerie:
Hahah. Okay, now Marten's not catching a break.
Annnnnnd I think I'm gonna stay off the forum from here on it because the sexism and homophobia here is a bit upsetting.
Things I have learned today!
1) Gay guys are"unmanly."
2) Being manly is defined by one's ability to have sex with women (and not,y'know, by being a man.) I sure am glad that my womanhood is just there to shore up your definition of manhood!
3) Men will unblinkingly say that they don't want to be "harmless" to women and not even think about what that word choice implies. Moreover they will feel that being "harmless" is a negative, because... you must get women by being threatening? something? what? As though if a girl is not attracted to you, you making sure to present yourself as "harmful" or whatever is gonna change that. (Seriously does it not bother people that women often frame NOT receiving unwanted male attention in terms of physical safety--"he's safe, he's harmless," etc, and yet most men want to actively go against that?)
4) Feeling like if you're ever in a conversation with gay men, wanting to "keep them at arm's length" and feeling that any display of physical affection between them is "revolting" is not "an irrational aversion" or homophobic. Cuz it's totally rational to find two consenting adults engaging in mild PDA (like the kind straight people do all the time) totally disgusting, right?
I agree with Carl-E, btw--if a woman is attracted to you, she's attracted, and plenty of women are attracted to gay guys anyway.
(And PS, poster who was constantly assumed to be a lesbian--well no wonder THAT was annoying--your friends didn't so much harmlessly assume as refuse to take your actual stated preference as an answer, which is certainly rude and annoying.)
Odin:
--- Quote from: JackFaerie on 22 Feb 2011, 07:03 ---Hahah. Okay, now Marten's not catching a break.
Annnnnnd I think I'm gonna stay off the forum from here on it because the sexism and homophobia here is a bit upsetting.
Things I have learned today!
1) Gay guys are"unmanly."
2) Being manly is defined by one's ability to have sex with women (and not,y'know, by being a man.) I sure am glad that my womanhood is just there to shore up your definition of manhood!
3) Men will unblinkingly say that they don't want to be "harmless" to women and not even think about what that word choice implies. Moreover they will feel that being "harmless" is a negative, because... you must get women by being threatening? something? what? As though if a girl is not attracted to you, you making sure to present yourself as "harmful" or whatever is gonna change that. (Seriously does it not bother people that women often frame NOT receiving unwanted male attention in terms of physical safety--"he's safe, he's harmless," etc, and yet most men want to actively go against that?)
4) Feeling like if you're ever in a conversation with gay men, wanting to "keep them at arm's length" and feeling that any display of physical affection between them is "revolting" is not "an irrational aversion" or homophobic. Cuz it's totally rational to find two consenting adults engaging in mild PDA (like the kind straight people do all the time) totally disgusting, right?
I agree with Carl-E, btw--if a woman is attracted to you, she's attracted, and plenty of women are attracted to gay guys anyway.
(And PS, poster who was constantly assumed to be a lesbian--well no wonder THAT was annoying--your friends didn't so much harmlessly assume as refuse to take your actual stated preference as an answer, which is certainly rude and annoying.)
--- End quote ---
Citation needed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version