THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Cawigular on 21 Feb 2011, 13:52
-
While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.
-
While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.
Word Brother. Word. Wuurrd...
We are all children of the sun and must walk our paths together.
Yes.
-
While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.
That's nice. But if you were standing around with an attractive friend of your preferred gender, would you be equally offended if a bystander assumed this was your significant other? Also, are you regularly "a little offended" when people assume you are straight? (I bet people assume you are straight all the time.) Because otherwise I don't see how your offense at being assumed gay would NOT be at least somewhat homophobic.
-
That's nice. But if you were standing around with an attractive friend of your preferred gender, would you be equally offended if a bystander assumed this was your significant other? Also, are you regularly "a little offended" when people assume you are straight? (I bet people assume you are straight all the time.) Because otherwise I don't see how your offense at being assumed gay would NOT be at least somewhat homophobic.
In my experience, people get offended if you assume their sexuality is anything other than what it actually is (or at least what they perceive it to be). This holds true for almost every person I know.
I still want to hear more from Elliot. Poor guy seems far more downtrodden than Marten right now...
-
Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. (Merriam-Webster)
I would not be offended if somebody assumed I was straight because I am fact AM straight. I like to think that my manner projects this, as well as how I interact with women. So yes, I would be rather put off if someone assumed I was gay. It would be especially strange considering that the average man is straight, so something about me would have had to imply that I was not.
Also, I would feel similar emotions if someone assumed that I held a certain political opinion. That doesn't mean I hate people who disagree with me.
So, it's not at all homophobic. I have no fear or aversion to homosexuals, nor do I discriminate against them. I am simply not one, and would not enjoy being assumed to be one. Like I said, I try to not make such comments to people, and let them tell me about themselves instead.
-
I wouldn't call it a regular aversion - I'd call it an irrational aversion.
I, too would be put off to find someone assumed I was gay. What, am I acting effeminate or something??
I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length.
But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care.
Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation,
I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.
-
Well for me, I see no reason to treat them any different than anybody else. I don't feel a need to "keep them at arms length.
ANNNYYYYWAAAAYYYYSSSSS....
(http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/change_of_subject_seal.png)
I'm not sure about Padma and Renee sticking around. Having two characters introduced who are in essence bizzarro versions of protagonists is going to get a little old, unless Jeph has a twist in store for us.
-
Marten would be justified in throwing his drink in her face. Seriously, two guys, in a bar, just talking, so they HAVE TO be gay? Really? REALLY?
And you don't even know what else went into the assumption--maybe the way Marten acted when he came in for his coffee and a danish. maybe the way Steve was hanging on him when trying to get him to share his feelings.
I'm pretty sure that went a long way towards Padma making that assumption, since normally heterosexual guys (US-raised hetero guys anyway) are not as touchy-feely with each other as Steve and Marten were being in the last few comics.
As for a hetero guy not liking being called gay, well a big part of that is that many hetero guys feel such a mistake calls into question their manliness and, most importantly, their ability to attract girls. After all, hetero women generally don't have sex with gay guys, right? Many girls hang out with gay guys specifically because they KNOW the guys won't hit on them, and are therefore "harmless". Many hetero guys don't want to be considered that "harmless" because such harmlessness implies a total lack of attraction towards the guy in question. When the guy in question is attracted to the girl who thinks he's gay, finding out she thinks he's gay is basically another form of rejection, and possibly an attack on his manhood; in his mind, she thinks he's not "manly" enough for her.
-
While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.
That's nice. But if you were standing around with an attractive friend of your preferred gender, would you be equally offended if a bystander assumed this was your significant other? Also, are you regularly "a little offended" when people assume you are straight? (I bet people assume you are straight all the time.) Because otherwise I don't see how your offense at being assumed gay would NOT be at least somewhat homophobic.
As someone who is often assumed to be a lesbian, I get offended. I don't get so offended that I go into a RAAAAAAAAAGE about it or anything. But, it does get annoying. I mean for instance when someone I've known for three years, who knows me well enough to know I'm straight, looks at me and shouts "You have got to be a lesbian," I get offended. Just like when I was getting an apartment with my best friend, another friend of ours asked "How is that going to work out since she's a Lesbian, wouldn't that make you uncomfortable?" That offended me. Especially considering the fact that I had at one point in time had feelings for him, THAT HE KNEW ABOUT. After this kind of thing happens regularly, with people who know you it just makes the whole thing a touchy subject. Most of the time if someone asks I just say "no." If someone tells me the assumed I am, it bothers me because, why not just ask?
This does not make me homophobic. I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends. More than anything it's just annoying. I've been in situations where people didn't believe me when I said I was straight. It makes me wonder "Why do people always think that? What is it about me gives off that vibe?" As you can imagine, this doesn't help me win over the men. And it's altogether frustrating.
-
I've always been flattered when being mistaken for gay. It's usually by other gay men, though, so it can certainly be awkward.
BTW, "gaydar" is a myth. It's just an educated guess, a reading of various bits of body language and a lot of assumptions made by that reader.
Maybe it's my fashion sense? (that's a joke - my fashion sense is my wife's... she gave me some serious tutelage when I was in grad school, mainly geared towards "dressing for success", and what she liked. It still works pretty well.)
Maybe it's because I'm involved with the theatre? 'cause, you know, there are no straight guys who like to sing in musicals...
But it's really never been a problem when I was assumed gay by a female acquaintance, either. If someone of the opposite sex assumed I was gay, and I expressed an interest in them, the reaction would generally be pleasant surprise. Never an "Oh god no, I thought you were gay!"
So get with it. Manliness isn't the issue, nor is "effeminism". Your sexuality is what it is; what it seems to be to others is strictly in the eye of the beholder. And that eye only sees what it wants to see, or what it's used to seeing!
Remember, the people to whom your sexuality matter already know which way you lean...
-
ooooo-kay
So this is how it looks to the outsider, when I'm vehemently arguing a point while drunk. Marten and Steve seem to have made quite a first impression.
The only time (that I'm aware of :roll:) when I was mistaken for a gay was very clearly my own fault. I was 19. Travelling by myself somewhere in Northern Germany. Eager for some brewskies (and to test my German at a counter) I went to this bar. I had lead a somewhat sheltered life (Hi Mom!), so I didn't realize that this particular watering hole caters in particular for the homosexual population. The truth only dawned on me shortly after some patrons came up to chat. I guess the look on my face told the whole story. They were probably amused more than anything else :-). It was too awkward for me, so I left (after downing my beer - first things first), but nothing really unpleasant happened. Just a mistake you can laugh about after an hour or so.
-
I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length. But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care. Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation, I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.
It is a bit depressing that disgust and revulsion towards homosexuals has to express itself as criminal violence before people feel that it rises to a level they are prepared to call homophobia. Apparently, anything short of that is OK. One encounters the same kind of thinking with regard to racism of course. There the principle is "I may regard <ethnic group> as sub-human, but I'm not a racist because I don't beat them up, lynch them, or set their houses on fire". It's a kind of ethical limbo-dancing, where the bar is moved up to make it easier to pass under, instead of down to make it more challenging. Still, I suppose the fact that some people actually do, in a few places at least, hesitate to "kick the shit out of them", has to be regarded as progress. :cry:
I was rather confused by today's strip.
-
<Moderator comment>
People, be careful if you plan to continue the discussion of homosexuality and homophobia. Akima has already properly challenged the idea that non-violent homophobia doesn't count (as the earlier quote from Merriam-Webster's dictionary also made clear: "Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"). I would go further, and say that even remarks like "some of my best friends are homosexuals" (not a quote, thankfully) can easily still be offensive in this context because of the way in which they are placing people into that box as if it matters. So far the discussion has been sufficiently civil, and with enough correction, for me to let it stand - but even a mere repeat of some earlier remarks would take it over the edge, so please think hard before posting on the subject again.
-
Holy shucking fit, I just decided to read the rest of the comments and I really shouldn't have. PEOPLE!
chill out.
He reacted the same way most normal people approximately react to a query that is based on a relationship that doesn't exist, such as:
"Madam, would you like some help?" (Asked of a dude.)
"I already plugged in the AARP discount." (Said to a 45 year old.)
"So you guys are gay, right?" (two straight friends)
"So, how long have you two been dating?"(While sitting with your brother.)
I hope my point is made. It's not homophobic to be aggrieved that someone assumed you were homosexual, it's just not very mellow.
-
If you are equally aggrieved at any mistaken assumption about you, that could be true I suppose - but if you are that commonly aggrieved, you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.
-
Well, sexual orientation is a pretty important part of most people's self image, so being mistaken for a homo-/heterosexual would be harder to handle than being mistaken for, say, an Italian or a Democrat, I think. Still, this isn't the right place to discuss such issues, is it?
Back to the comic - I hope Marten gets a nice new relationship to focus on soon. I hate to see him lonely and sulking - he's such a wonderful guy when he's happy. And I still feel that he could end up with Padma, even though it's starting to look pretty hopeless.
-
you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.
I agree with this. But I also think people shouldn't assume things even if it appears horribly obvious. When someone makes an assumption about me, I am usually not bothered by what the assumption is, but moreso by the fact that this person would make such an assumption without asking me or knowing me. The act of assuming itself speaks a lot more about the person doing the assuming than anything else.
-
If you are equally aggrieved at any mistaken assumption about you, that could be true I suppose - but if you are that commonly aggrieved, you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.
Seriously, that one time a black guy called me an N-bomb (only censoring because the reactionary way things are handled here necessitates it) was hilarious (I'm white).
-
If you are equally aggrieved at any mistaken assumption about you, that could be true I suppose - but if you are that commonly aggrieved, you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.
...Yes, thus the not very mellow bit. Though you're exaggerating my point quite a bit, to the point of moving to a different subject- I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.
-
I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.
Who's to say what's core to someone they don't know, though?
-
I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.
Who's to say what's core to someone they don't know, though?
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.
-
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.
-
We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not
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.
-
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.)
-
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.)
Citation needed.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/emot-psypop.gif)
-
We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not
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.
:psyduck: Why do you keep warping what I say? Now you're extending 'react negatively' into 'react angrily'. If he reacted by grabbing his chair and beating the table with it that would be bad too, but that's not what we're talking about.
And that was a pretty damn unnecessary warning, unless there's a large segment of humanity that does in fact like to be called older (at 45), another gender, incestuous, or another orientation. Save the warnings for when there's danger.
Jeez, I don't even care about this argument ostensibly, but this misunderstanding is rankling.
Citation needed.
:police: BWEEOOP BWEEOOOP BWEEEooooo-
Hi, I'm officer Davis, license and registration please
*half an hour goes by*
Have a nice day, be sure to be there for your court date or mail in the check.
Citation status: delivered
-
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/awesometile.gif)
-
I see Steve is backpedaling on that whole flirting thing. Unless he's one of those people who unconsciously flirts with everyone while drunk. I have a gay friend who, when drunk, will even flirt with females. In any case, I'm glad Marten busted him. It needed to be done. I like Steve, but I hate cheaters and I'd hate to not like Steve anymore.
My sister tells me that, lately, when she goes out to the clubs she's been getting hit on by women who assume she's a lesbian. She doesn't get offended, although it does confuse her. She says her guy friends tell her it's because she wears pony tails and and looks tough no matter how girly she dresses. I thinks it has more to do with the fact that she's the only female in the group she regularly hangs with and she/they all act like she's one of the guys. Meanwhile, the guys keep teasing her about her having more luck with the ladies than they are.
Until I moved in with the man who would become my husband everyone in my family expected me to come out of the closet any day. Every single one of them. Now, in their defense I didn't date, all my male friends were gay and I spent most of my time in Boystown, which to my family just meant the homosexual area.
I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length. But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care. Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation, I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.
It is a bit depressing that disgust and revulsion towards homosexuals has to express itself as criminal violence before people feel that it rises to a level they are prepared to call homophobia. Apparently, anything short of that is OK. One encounters the same kind of thinking with regard to racism of course. There the principle is "I may regard <ethnic group> as sub-human, but I'm not a racist because I don't beat them up, lynch them, or set their houses on fire". It's a kind of ethical limbo-dancing, where the bar is moved up to make it easier to pass under, instead of down to make it more challenging. Still, I suppose the fact that some people actually do, in a few places at least, hesitate to "kick the shit out of them", has to be regarded as progress. :cry:
I was rather confused by today's strip.
My husband, who sadly feels the same as El_Flesh, didn't consider himself homophobic and used the exact same rationale. We discussed it frequently in the early days of our relationship because, being bisexual and having mostly gay friends, it was an issue that caused much frustration for me. Eventually we settled on him accepting that he is homophobic and me accepting that you can't argue someone out of a lifetime of conditioning. And it is conditioning. He grew up in a super small town smack in the middle of the bible belt with one of those "macho" dad's who can't see any thing they consider soft in their sons without accusing them of being "queer". I figure that's a special sort of hell for an artistic geek boy.
-
There is nothing more nauseating than a Nice Guy™.
-
I don't know, hearing "If I was gay, I could do better than that!" would be pretty fucking insulting.
BINGO! And that's the point. It wasn't about being gay (not to Marten - maybe a little to Steve), but rather the insult between friends.
And no, Marten was not necessarily "getting his flirt on". He was responding to a friendly gesture from a new acquaintance. It may have gone to flirting eventually, but this is Marten we're talking about. And the real problem was that Steve moved in and took over the conversation completely, flirting shamelessly (although in his defense, it was probably unconscious, as a lot of Steve's actions are).
All the homophobia in the strip that's being bandied about on the board is projection. And JackFaerie, please don't take it too hard - remember, there's a significant proportion of the population (and hence of this board) that needs some serious education on the topic. I know it upsets you, but you can't be effective if you walk out of the room...
of course, in some cases, you can't be effective at all.
EDIT: NiceGuysTM are not harmless...
-
Yeah to marten, but I am confused on how this devolved into meaning either of the two are instantly homophobic or think gay is bad.
Me too, it's a LONG way from acting surprised and insulting(joking with) a friend to homophobia....
Lately (in my own personal life, not this forum) it seems that people just want to get angry at anything...
AAAAANYWAY, great comic today, made me laugh a good while
-
There is nothing more nauseating than a Nice Guy™.
Hey now - I may be a rake, but I'm an honest rake. The Nice Guy wants to have his cake an eat it, too, being both "harmless" and on the market, but being on the market to some women means you're a "threat" to others, and the only way to know which is to "threaten," either overtly or underhandedly. That's life.
-
@Odin, there is a reason why they say Beware The Nice Ones (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BewareTheNiceOnes).
-
No.
No, no, no.
You do not need to "threaten" to be on the market. You do not need to "make a move" on someone just because "that's how it's done".
Does it work? Occasionally. Too often, in fact. Some women expect it, but are rarely happy about it. Most wind up disappointed at some level with the man who does so.
And just in case you think we're talking about nice guys, this is what's meant by Nice GuyTM (http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml)
Try being genuine instead. It works.
-
sexism and homophobia
Yeah, you've provided a great example of why I usually avoid this section.
You mean the "every person trying to find a way to be offended at every moment" thing?
Yeah, it does get to be a pain. Seriously, can't we discuss the comic WITHOUT it turning into a bunch of OH NO YOU OFFENDED MY SENSIBILITIES EXCUSE ME WHILE I GET OUT MY MILE LONG RANT to "educate" those who don't agree with me. (seriously, while I might agree with Carl-E on the opinion he is giving on the subject of homophobia itself, I find the idea that anyone who has different values than someone is just undereducated on the subject rather more offensive than almost every 'homophobic' post made. Also, yes I am a hypocrite at getting offended in my "lets not get offended" post. Its just the whole ATMOSPHERE of this board sometimes exudes this need to get offended at everything.)
-
There is nothing more nauseating than a Nice Guy™.
Hey now - I may be a rake, but I'm an honest rake. The Nice Guy wants to have his cake an eat it, too, being both "harmless" and on the market, but being on the market to some women means you're a "threat" to others, and the only way to know which is to "threaten," either overtly or underhandedly. That's life.
Carl-E already covered it, but we may be talking about completely different things. There is a huge difference between being a confident, interesting guy compared to being a Jerk or a Nice Guy.
For more info on top of Carl-E's link, check out www.the-niceguy.com and realize the full scope of fucked-up-ness we're talking about when we say "Nice Guy".
-
That's sad, all of it.
-
Listen, the US House just passed a measure to cut Planned Parenthood funding by $300 million dollars Friday, there are bigger things to be outraged about.
-
No, more like, "I don't enjoy reading about posters trying to justify their sexist/homophobic/ridiculous thoughts in a comic discussion section." That's all. Joe Blow reacts violently if someone assumes he is gay, Jane Doe makes sure to keep gay people at least an arm's length away, et cetera, et cetera. It's disappointing when tangents like these are left open for posters to discuss, as if those are acceptable opinions. Some ideas are wrong and should be quickly dismissed, allowing the discussion to move on to better things.
So if you don't agree with someone, the best course of action is not to engage them in a civil attempt to change their viewpoints, but rather to ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door? Going back and forth in an echo chamber doesn't seem like the best way to expand minds and diversify viewpoints. I would also posit that there are no such things as "unacceptable opinions," no matter how personally offensive they may be to you or me.
As to the point about "taking offense at being assumed gay = homophobia," I ask of any gay/lesbian readers in this room: do you get a tinge of uncomfortability/anger if somebody assumes you to be straight?
-
So if you don't agree with someone, the best course of action is not to engage them in a civil attempt to change their viewpoints, but rather to ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door?
Sorry to barge in but...
What? When in Tender's post did you read that the best course of action is to " ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door? "??
Tender only said that homophobia is wrong. And i agree with him/her, if you have some personal choices that don't go along with homosexuality, that's your bussiness, but that doesn't mean you can discriminate people because of their sexual orientation.
-
So if you don't agree with someone, the best course of action is not to engage them in a civil attempt to change their viewpoints, but rather to ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door?
Sorry to barge in but...
What? When in Tender's post did you read that the best course of action is to " ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door? "??
Tender only said that homophobia is wrong. And i agree with him/her, if you have some personal choices that don't go along with homosexuality, that's your bussiness, but that doesn't mean you can discriminate people because of their sexual orientation.
I should clarify.
My issue isn't with tender's point of view regarding sexual orientation/homophobia, rather the reaction towards those with a differing viewpoint, such as this quote:
"It's disappointing when tangents like these are left open for posters to discuss, as if those are acceptable opinions. Some ideas are wrong and should be quickly dismissed, allowing the discussion to move on to better things."
It's the use of the term "acceptable opinions" that raises my hackles the most; like I said earlier, I feel that there are no "unacceptable" opinions, no matter how offensive they may be. He/she also seems to wish to control the dialogue, "dismissing" those opinions they find disagreeable, in order to "move on to better things." To me, that's a closed-minded attitude taken, ironically, in order to further "open-mindedness."
-
Oh, but there are unacceptable opinions. No matter how sincerely held, there are opinions that, at their root, are just wrong. Doesn't make the holder an evil person (necessarily), but it doesn't reflect well on them either.
The attempt to open the eyes/mind of such a person needs to be made. Otherwise, they'll continue in the dark, and you've implicitly validated their opinion. It doesn't need to be vehement or violent, nor does it need to end a friendship, but it needs to be done.
The range of people in this forum is vast, in background, age and maturity. For many, it's the first time some of these assumptions have ever been challenged. Make the attempt to correct what's wrong, and you'll leave the place in better shape than it was before. the improvements may not show for a while, but without the effort, change will never happen.
-
Listen, the US House just passed a measure to cut Planned Parenthood funding by $300 million dollars Friday, there are bigger things to be outraged about.
Strangely, it's possible to care about more than one thing at a time. It's possible to fight the bill as hard as you can, and call people out on homophobia. :psyduck:
-
I, too would be put off to find someone assumed I was gay. What, am I acting effeminate or something??
I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length.
But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care.
Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation,
I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.
No, that's... pretty much homophobia, and it's not wrong to say it is. As others have noted, it doesn't have to be violent or dangerous to be homophobic. I am curious about two things: do you think that there aren't gay people on this board that might read this and feel a little put off (good to know we only disgust you and you don't think we should be beaten for that), and secondly, do you feel the same way about gay women? Lots of people are all right with two pretty girls kissing, but not so much with two men, pretty or not. Also, you don't need to keep the gays at arm's length. Everyone knows that the gay is only transmitted sexually.
As for the comic, Marten seems pretty fine with gay men - I don't consider him homophobic. Especially after interacting with his father, and his support of his dad's desire for partnership, I don't think that he'd necessarily be offended that Padma thought he was gay with Steve. Rather, I think he's just frustrated that Steve's monopolizing the conversation and seeming like he's not disclosing his relationship status (that might be concern for Cosette, or it might be jealousy of Padma's attention, both, or some other reason). Steve, on the other hand, I'm not exactly sure. He hasn't shown any real reasoning one way or the other, from what I can recall (and I may be mistaken!).
And the poster who said that the homophobia is projected, yes, it pretty much is. Most of the responses have been about what other commenters on this board have said, but I think it's relevant to the comic itself. Jacques has clearly made an effort to make realistic characters of many sexual orientations, and tried to be sensitive to them. How the readers interpret that, and how people of those sexual orientations feel about the representation matter. Gay people and homophobia are pretty common jokes, and they can either reinforce negative ideas about gay people and the like, or they can sort of undermine the humor in degrading other people. I feel that this situation, we aren't supposed to laugh at the idea that Marten and Steve are gay, but rather that Padma keeps saying the wrong thing and that Steve and Marten do sometimes act like an old married couple.
-
And the poster who said that the homophobia is projected, yes, it pretty much is. Most of the responses have been about what other commenters on this board have said, but I think it's relevant to the comic itself. Jacques has clearly made an effort to make realistic characters of many sexual orientations, and tried to be sensitive to them. How the readers interpret that, and how people of those sexual orientations feel about the representation matter. Gay people and homophobia are pretty common jokes, and they can either reinforce negative ideas about gay people and the like, or they can sort of undermine the humor in degrading other people. I feel that this situation, we aren't supposed to laugh at the idea that Marten and Steve are gay, but rather that Padma keeps saying the wrong thing and that Steve and Marten do sometimes act like an old married couple.
Yeah, I don't think anyone was ever arguing any of the characters were homophobic. Someone brought up that Marten should throw a drink in Padma's face for *gasp* assuming he's gay, and someone else argued that strong of a reaction is pretty homophobic, and it went from there. Complete with homophobic statements defended as, er, not homophobia.
We need to de-couple this concept of homophobic/other discriminatory belief=bad person. While they are not good traits, people have unfortunately come to the conclusion that, for example, homophobes are bad people, and I'm not a bad person, so I can't be homophobic. Er, no. We are somewhat socialised to be prejudiced, and recognising that prejudice and making an effort to change is what stops you being a "bad person", not attempting to change the definition of your behaviour.
-
Yeah, I don't think anyone was ever arguing any of the characters were homophobic. Someone brought up that Marten should throw a drink in Padma's face for *gasp* assuming he's gay, and someone else argued that strong of a reaction is pretty homophobic, and it went from there. Complete with homophobic statements defended as, er, not homophobia.
We need to de-couple this concept of homophobic/other discriminatory belief=bad person. While they are not good traits, people have unfortunately come to the conclusion that, for example, homophobes are bad people, and I'm not a bad person, so I can't be homophobic. Er, no. We are somewhat socialised to be prejudiced, and recognising that prejudice and making an effort to change is what stops you being a "bad person", not attempting to change the definition of your behaviour.
I guess I just wanted to be clear about what I was saying. Sorry if I was just stating the obvious!
And your second part - QUOTED FOR TRUTH. Having homophobic beliefs absolutely does not make you a bad person. You can have all sorts of wonderful qualities and still be a homophobe. It's still bad and hurtful to be a homophobe, but it doesn't invalidate all the good things about a person. People are very complex! You said it much more eloquently than I could, and I guess I just wanted to reinforce it.
-
By pwhodges's argument so far, the people that went ballistic are racist.
From a lighter I saw once: I don't discriminate, I hate everyone.
-
Like Kim Pine... But does it make you happy?
-
Oh.
It looks like this is going to be one of those threads... :psyduck:
-
Going to be?
Already is, has been, and...
<_<
>_>
...with a little luck, may calm down some...
[/wishful thinking]
-
Also, you don't need to keep the gays at arm's length. Everyone knows that the gay is only transmitted sexually.
Please, pleeeease tell me you are joking.
-
Also, you don't need to keep the gays at arm's length. Everyone knows that the gay is only transmitted sexually.
Please, pleeeease tell me you are joking.
I think saying "the gay" is a pretty good sarcasm indicator.
-
Also, you don't need to keep the gays at arm's length. Everyone knows that the gay is only transmitted sexually.
Please, pleeeease tell me you are joking.
Yes, I most certainly was! It'd be pretty fantastically hypocritical to criticize someone for being homophobic and then say something like that.
-
...with a little luck, may calm down some...
[/wishful thinking]
Where can I get a bowl of whatever you're smoking?
-
Where can I get a bowl of whatever you're smoking?
But... it's cheerios... Why would you smoke cheerios?
-
Because they work quicker that way. :wink:
Or so I've been told... :evil: :angel: :mrgreen:
-
There were times I used to wonder why Jeph would come in here drunk.
The past few pages are pretty stellar examples of why.
-
(moderator)
On the bright side, people have been keeping it relatively civil.
(/moderator)
-
I'd think they'd be stellar examples of why not to come in here drunk, so he can be rational and ignore all the arguing rather than get worked up about it and start a thread posting random weird stuff like he did during the Doracalypse. Although, I came in rational and still got a bit mixed up in it, so eh :oops:. I shouldn't have tried to catch up. This isn't too bad really, provided you skim and/or try not to think about the unfortunate implications of some statements.
As for the comic: why would Big Guy be quietly making cloth? 8-) Also, Renee sure is grumpy. (edited)
What's under Martin's drink? it's red and somewhat amorphous... actually, I don't think I want to know.
A coaster...
-
We need to de-couple this concept of homophobic/other discriminatory belief=bad person. While they are not good traits, people have unfortunately come to the conclusion that, for example, homophobes are bad people, and I'm not a bad person, so I can't be homophobic. Er, no. We are somewhat socialised to be prejudiced, and recognising that prejudice and making an effort to change is what stops you being a "bad person", not attempting to change the definition of your behaviour.
And your second part - QUOTED FOR TRUTH. Having homophobic beliefs absolutely does not make you a bad person. You can have all sorts of wonderful qualities and still be a homophobe. It's still bad and hurtful to be a homophobe, but it doesn't invalidate all the good things about a person. People are very complex! You said it much more eloquently than I could, and I guess I just wanted to reinforce it.
It doesn't seem to me that the messages in these two quotes are the same at all.
Fenris' point, it seems to me, is that people who are prejudiced against homosexuality self-identify as "good people", and so believe that since homophobia is "bad", they as "good people" cannot possibly be homophobic, because nothing that "good people" do can be bad. He goes on to say that recognising ones own prejudice, and making the effort to change is what stops one being a bad person, not changing the definition of bad behaviour to exclude your own.
Cabbagehut's line, by contrast, seems to be that you can be a "good person" while doing bad things, because your wonderful other qualities somehow cancel out the bad. And people are complex.
I am much more in sympathy with Fenris' view, but a crucial problem I believe is that people self-identify as "good people" in the first place, apparently ignoring their actual thoughts, words, and actions.
-
Guys, guys, what about all the good things Hitler did? :mrgreen:
-
Stabilizing the currency... Volkswagens...
Can't think of much else, but I think that's more of an example of an evil person doing a few good things, rather than a "good person" doing a few evil things.
Which, as I wake up and think more about it, is probably your point. Everyone has some good, some bad, and it's proportionally different. And we all need to realize that, even as "good people", that some of our opinions (and even deeply held beliefs) can actually be pretty fucking bad!
OK, now it makes more sense, and I don't need to throw out Godwin's law.
-
If someone makes an incorrect assumption about me, it doesn't really offend me for the most part. If someone acts on that assumption, that's a different matter. If I found out that someone who I had recently met thought I was gay, I would probably find it a bit amusing, but if I found out that they had been going around telling everyone else that I was gay, I'd be pissed. It wouldn't have to be anything about sexuality; other incorrect assumptions would have the same effect.
BTW, the OP seems to suggest that Steve threw his drink in Padma's face. That doesn't seem to be the case--he was surprised, and jerked, which sloshed the drink around in his glass, but he doesn't appear to have gotten any on her or anyone else. It's not even clear if any of it actually got spilled.
-
It doesn't seem to me that the messages in these two quotes are the same at all.
Fenris' point, it seems to me, is that people who are prejudiced against homosexuality self-identify as "good people", and so believe that since homophobia is "bad", they as "good people" cannot possibly be homophobic, because nothing that "good people" do can be bad. He goes on to say that recognising ones own prejudice, and making the effort to change is what stops one being a bad person, not changing the definition of bad behaviour to exclude your own.
Cabbagehut's line, by contrast, seems to be that you can be a "good person" while doing bad things, because your wonderful other qualities somehow cancel out the bad. And people are complex.
I am much more in sympathy with Fenris' view, but a crucial problem I believe is that people self-identify as "good people" in the first place, apparently ignoring their actual thoughts, words, and actions.
I'm sorry, I do agree with Fenris; I apparently wasn't very clear about what I meant.
What I meant was that sometimes, when you call someone on homophobia (or racism, or other -isms, etc.), they cite all the good things about themselves or that person in order to invalidate the accusation, and to "prove" that they can't be this bad thing you've said - they're a good person, and homophobia/racism/etc. is only practiced by bad people. Generally, they think of violence or hateful bigotry, like lynching or slurs. But that's not the only way it's practiced, you know? It's calling someone on their privilege (often, not always), and them getting defensive. But if we change the view, like Fenris suggested, from homophobe = entirely bad person into homophobia = bad beliefs that can change, it makes it easier for people to accept criticism of their own behavior.
My main point was that one bad thing doesn't invalidate good things, and a bunch of good things doesn't invalidate the bad ones, either. That's what I was trying to get at by saying that people are complex. Just because I've done X number of good things doesn't give me a pass on homophobia or bigotry. But just because someone's called me on my homophobia doesn't mean I've never done anything of value. Instead, it's what Fenris has said - changing your behavior is the key, not changing the definition of your behavior.
What I'm writing is awfully clumsy, and I'm really sorry about that. I can't seem to quite put my finger on what I'm trying to actually communicate.
-
What I'm writing is awfully clumsy, and I'm really sorry about that. I can't seem to quite put my finger on what I'm trying to actually communicate.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes..?
It occurs to me that homophobia (i.e. a fear or aversion to homosexuality), and actively discriminating against homosexuals, are subtly different things.
-
Understanding is a three edged sword.
-
Only a Sith deals in absolutes..?
It occurs to me that homophobia (i.e. a fear or aversion to homosexuality), and actively discriminating against homosexuals, are subtly different things.
If I'm understanding your first quote (I've never seen Star Wars, and not sure if I fully understand the reference), yes, I think so? Very rarely are people entirely good or entirely bad. I like to think I'm a good person, but sometimes, I totally fuck that up and need to be called on it. And lots of people are probably don't mean harm, but that doesn't mean that they don't cause it.
I think they are subtly different. I have a friend who is deeply Christian, and I know she thinks that gay people are just "wrong". But I also know that she thinks it's wrong to treat gay people differently than straight people. Jesus loved us all, she says, and we all sin, so let God judge. She's homophobic, but doesn't necessarily discriminate. She's still wrong to be homophobic, no matter what her reasoning, but I can appreciate that she makes a conscious effort (in her mind) to live up to the ideals of loving your neighbor, etc. But at the same time, I can also understand a gay person not wanting to be friends with her.
-
Yes, I most certainly was! It'd be pretty fantastically hypocritical to criticize someone for being homophobic and then say something like that.
Sorry sorry, i once had a disscussion with some one that thought that being homosexual could be transmited, and it was pretty fierce. i still have bad memories from it... And i just go nuts when someone even jokes about it.
So yeah, my bad! :psyduck:
-
Yes, I most certainly was! It'd be pretty fantastically hypocritical to criticize someone for being homophobic and then say something like that.
Sorry sorry, i once had a disscussion with some one that thought that being homosexual could be transmited, and it was pretty fierce. i still have bad memories from it... And i just go nuts when someone even jokes about it.
So yeah, my bad! :psyduck:
Haha, no problem! And I'm sorry that someone seriously thought that. How terrible!
-
(Mods: good job, splitting this one off.)
-
Guys, guys, what about all the good things Hitler did? :mrgreen:
I was wondering when someone would invoke Godwin's law (albeit ironically)
What I meant was that sometimes, when you call someone on homophobia (or racism, or other -isms, etc.), they cite all the good things about themselves or that person in order to invalidate the accusation, and to "prove" that they can't be this bad thing you've said - they're a good person, and homophobia/racism/etc. is only practiced by bad people. Generally, they think of violence or hateful bigotry, like lynching or slurs. But that's not the only way it's practiced, you know? It's calling someone on their privilege (often, not always), and them getting defensive. But if we change the view, like Fenris suggested, from homophobe = entirely bad person into homophobia = bad beliefs that can change, it makes it easier for people to accept criticism of their own behavior.
...
changing your behavior is the key, not changing the definition of your behavior.
Have you ever read or studied Critical Theory (Critical Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.)? If not, I think you might find it interesting, since your comments about calling people on their privilege and owning up to one's own prejudices and trying to change them rather than hiding behind a wall of denial both reflect some of the central themes of Critical Theory. Google "unpacking the invisible knapsack" for a good start. (Even if you don't want to delve into the subject, this is an article I think everyone should read.)
-
Guys, guys, what about all the good things Hitler did? :mrgreen:
I was wondering when someone would invoke Godwin's law (albeit ironically)
What I meant was that sometimes, when you call someone on homophobia (or racism, or other -isms, etc.), they cite all the good things about themselves or that person in order to invalidate the accusation, and to "prove" that they can't be this bad thing you've said - they're a good person, and homophobia/racism/etc. is only practiced by bad people. Generally, they think of violence or hateful bigotry, like lynching or slurs. But that's not the only way it's practiced, you know? It's calling someone on their privilege (often, not always), and them getting defensive. But if we change the view, like Fenris suggested, from homophobe = entirely bad person into homophobia = bad beliefs that can change, it makes it easier for people to accept criticism of their own behavior.
...
changing your behavior is the key, not changing the definition of your behavior.
Have you ever read or studied Critical Theory (Critical Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.)? If not, I think you might find it interesting, since your comments about calling people on their privilege and owning up to one's own prejudices and trying to change them rather than hiding behind a wall of denial both reflect some of the central themes of Critical Theory. Google "unpacking the invisible knapsack" for a good start. (Even if you don't want to delve into the subject, this is an article I think everyone should read.)
I have, actually. I think "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is a pretty good way to look at it, and enjoyed it. Alas, I am not anywhere nearly as eloquent as the author, so I kind of mess it up when I try to explain. Thanks for the suggestion!
-
http://notalwaysright.com/separates-the-men-from-the-boys/10358
Well that's timely. It's Australians, though.
-
http://notalwaysright.com/separates-the-men-from-the-boys/10358
Well that's timely. It's Australians, though.
LOL! And not just Australians. Queenslanders!
-
I personally don't like people assuming things about me. While I feel more strongly negative about them assuming false things about me, any assumption made will be either far too simplistic to be relevant to anything or completely out of context.
Should I be offended by someone doing so? No. In theory, no one should be offended by anything. To be offended is to combine a signal of distaste or disagreement with anger towards the originator, and anger pretty much never works as a better motivator for friendly diplomacy than not-anger as a general rule. (There are arguments against this claim, especially over the terminology, but when you get to their bones they are tough and short-sighted.) And friendly diplomacy leads to mediation, gains from trade and lowered transaction costs of interpersonal interaction, and eventually "better" (more cooperation = more production, more division of labor) society, which most people want.
Here's a common counterargument -- "Oh, but we need to be able to get offended in order to be motivated to counteract flaws in the system!"
I disagree. After a long life of arguing with people who desire to offend as a tactic in their oratory, I feel I almost cannot be offended. But I'm still extremely interested in acting to promote and work out problems between people, peoples and societies. Probably moreso than most people who get caught up in how they feel about the subject such that they cannot think straight or relate to the "offender."
Anyway, the error Padma made was the automatic nature of the assumption, not the fact that the assumption had to do with homosexuality. I would think slightly less of her (i.e. lower my opinion of her ability to make and follow through with good choices) for the assumption, because she was speaking and acting based on an unconfirmed assumption, except that she seems merely dense. The kind of dense with the capacity to learn from mistakes, which is almost better than...non-dense.
As opposed to her assumption being the spawn of some sort of personality trait derived from self-centeredness. Even if it was, I would be extremely hard-pressed to criticize someone for basing their harmless actions on unconfirmed assumptions.
If I'm understanding your first quote (I've never seen Star Wars, and not sure if I fully understand the reference), yes, I think so? Very rarely are people entirely good or entirely bad. I like to think I'm a good person, but sometimes, I totally fuck that up and need to be called on it. And lots of people are probably don't mean harm, but that doesn't mean that they don't cause it.
I think they are subtly different. I have a friend who is deeply Christian, and I know she thinks that gay people are just "wrong". But I also know that she thinks it's wrong to treat gay people differently than straight people. Jesus loved us all, she says, and we all sin, so let God judge. She's homophobic, but doesn't necessarily discriminate. She's still wrong to be homophobic, no matter what her reasoning, but I can appreciate that she makes a conscious effort (in her mind) to live up to the ideals of loving your neighbor, etc. But at the same time, I can also understand a gay person not wanting to be friends with her.
I guess most people here aren't moral relativists? Most people, including myself, think that homophobia is imprinted, awkward, backwards, reactionary, delusional, unfair, exclusionary, bad for society as a whole and terrible for the safety or peace of mind for individuals affected. I'm not sure that makes homophobia wrong, and I think that terminology is...unhelpful. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutist claims, and thus extremely easy to tear down (or slip down the slope into tunnel vision), especially by people who think of everything in terms of absolutes.
TL; DR!
Carpe diem!
:psyduck:
-
The discussion pertaining to 1866 misses a very important point: the joke wasn't to enforce the stereotype of the homophobic man, but to subvert it. In panel 3, we're tricked into thinking Steve was offended at being thought to be gay, but it turns out he's just shocked that anyone could think he wasn't out of Marten's league.
-
In theory, no one should be offended by anything.
If the other party has resorted to verbal aggression, it's too late for friendly mediation, and they're only doing it to signal that physical aggression is not far behind. I'm offended by being put in danger. Anger is a survival emotion for a reason.
-
In theory, no one should be offended by anything To be offended is to combine a signal of distaste or disagreement with anger towards the originator, and anger pretty much never works as a better motivator for friendly diplomacy than not-anger as a general rule..
This sounds like something between a massively condescending cop-out and a bullies' charter. It essentially says to the victim of abuse: "Your feelings are invalid. Your feelings are something that you are not entitled to have. Your feelings are the problem, not the way you've been treated." Just imagine telling victims of gay-bashing that they shouldn't be offended by it. Or women who've been raped. Or even just subjected to racial abuse. Just imagine telling them that their feelings are unhelpful and that "friendly diplomacy" will "work things out" if only they "relate" to the "offender"....
:psyduck:
And yeah, I'm comfortable with saying that gay-bashing and rape, and racial abuse are wrong, however horribly absolutist and unsophisticated that view apparently is. Sure it's a messy world, with lots of shades of grey, but retreating behind the idea that nothing is ever right or wrong is a cop-out.
-
I think alot of people love to slap on labels.
I worked with a couple of gay guys and got along fine with them!
One was a Liberache type and I was constantly joking with him (since he insisted on being in the closet I would ask him for pointers on cruising the babes - they all loved him! It was great fun for all of us ESPECIALLY him - he genuinely laughed at the things I would say.)
The other one I asked alot about the gay lifestyle because I was as interested as I would be in another culture.
Like one question: does it ever bore you or get annoying to have sex so often?
Turns out it's quite satisfying apparently.
Well, great for him! As for me, I'm not interested in being any part gay, and so I'm sorry - when people try the stunt of "well you haven't TRIED it" I'll tell them they're frikkin idiots and to fuck off. What makes me a homophobe simply because I don't want to be any closer to a gay guy than arm's length? Why should I have to have no problem with a gay in my personal space to NOT be a homophobe? Why aren't some of them HETEROphobes for insisting that there's something wrong with straight men?
I think alot of people today are very fast to slap a label on something without even thinking about it, simply because they're raised to do so.
-
A person can be closer than arm's length and not be making a pass.
Or even be interested.
Now, different cultures have different definitions of personal space, and even within a culture, you'll get wide differences - most New York City dwellers have a much smaller sense of personal space than people from the rural areas, and that will, occasionally, lead to severe misunderstandings and even confrontations.
If you're talking about people (gay or otherwise) getting in your space to the point where you're uncomfortable, that's pretty reasonable. I think the problem most people had with your statement was the quantification, and the fact that "at arm's length" is an expression commonly used for things we find disgusting.
Of course, your reactions cited at the end of the post are pretty homophobic. You wouldn't tell someone to fuck off if they said you didn't like broccolli because you never tried it, would you? It's yhe vehemence that makes it so!
-
No. I'm not interested and I sure don't need to be told that I don't know what I'm saying when I find something revolting.
I could see where that can be called 'phobic' (in the sense of how chemistry uses the word); because it certainly isn't a phobia. There is nothing irrational about it, and that's where others love to slap on a label and call it so. I don't fear gay guys; I respect their right to live and pursue what they wish (I even advocate their right to marry) but I am revolted by seeing gay sex and gay kissing.
Are you a vomit- or copro- (or choco-) phobe because you get revolted by "2 girls 1 cup"??? Seems like an extreme label slapping to me.
-
It's up to the individual, ANY individual, to respond to words or actions how they see fit; nobody can control the response of another human being. Let me use an extreme example to make a point: say somebody walks into an NAACP convention and yells the N-word through a bullhorn. Now, I don't think you'd find too many people who would argue that this person isn't a dipshit of the highest order, and most likely a straight-up a-hole. However, the response this gets is ONLY up to the people who choose to respond. One response is to roll your eyes and declare this person a simpleton most likely incapable of tying their own shoes, much less forming a coherent thought. Another response is to get angry and challenge this man's assertions verbally, yet calmly. A more extreme response is to walk up and punch the dude square in the mush and then kick the shit out of him for the next ten minutes.
My point is, there's always more than one way to handle a given situation. Getting offended is but one response, and is completely in the purview of the individual who is responding. Nobody can MAKE someone else feel offended. This isn't meant to say that feelings of offense are invalid or wrong, just that you and YOU ALONE are responsible for your actions and feelings.
-
I guess most people here aren't moral relativists? Most people, including myself, think that homophobia is imprinted, awkward, backwards, reactionary, delusional, unfair, exclusionary, bad for society as a whole and terrible for the safety or peace of mind for individuals affected. I'm not sure that makes homophobia wrong, and I think that terminology is...unhelpful. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutist claims, and thus extremely easy to tear down (or slip down the slope into tunnel vision), especially by people who think of everything in terms of absolutes.
TL; DR!
Carpe diem!
:psyduck:
I'm a moral relativist in some places, not so much in others. I can see what you mean about absolutist terms, and I guess I agree, but I don't really know how else to describe my reaction and my viewpoint, so I don't know what words might be better.
I don't mean to sound combative, but I can't just carpe diem when homophobia leads to violence. And the thing is, I never know when that might be. I've had people follow me into parking lots with the intent to beat the snot out of me; at the time, these people were total strangers. I later found out that they were friends of friends - people that I thought were "on my side", so to speak (I lived in a small town at the time, so the coincidence wasn't that shocking). For LGBTQ people, that's often a pretty real fear. Sure, in a lot of places, it's rare now, and you don't have to worry so much. But in others, it's part of life. Someone might try to hurt you for who you are. Of course, that's a pretty extreme example. But for the majority of my life, it's been my reality. I know you were talking about the whole slippery-slope thing, and that's kind of my view on it. Most people aren't going to do anything to me, except maybe throw out some rude words. But there's always going to be people who will hate me for who I am, and how do I tell someone who's just a bigot, and someone who's going to use that bigotry? There's no litmus test, unfortunately. It would be super-convenient!
I think alot of people love to slap on labels.
I worked with a couple of gay guys and got along fine with them!
One was a Liberache type and I was constantly joking with him (since he insisted on being in the closet I would ask him for pointers on cruising the babes - they all loved him! It was great fun for all of us ESPECIALLY him - he genuinely laughed at the things I would say.)
The other one I asked alot about the gay lifestyle because I was as interested as I would be in another culture.
Like one question: does it ever bore you or get annoying to have sex so often?
Turns out it's quite satisfying apparently.
Well, great for him! As for me, I'm not interested in being any part gay, and so I'm sorry - when people try the stunt of "well you haven't TRIED it" I'll tell them they're frikkin idiots and to fuck off. What makes me a homophobe simply because I don't want to be any closer to a gay guy than arm's length? Why should I have to have no problem with a gay in my personal space to NOT be a homophobe? Why aren't some of them HETEROphobes for insisting that there's something wrong with straight men?
I think alot of people today are very fast to slap a label on something without even thinking about it, simply because they're raised to do so.
What makes that a homophobic view is that the language you've used suggests that you have a special standard for gay men. You're presumably okay with people who aren't gay men in your person space. Generally, when we say we want to stay "an arm's length" away (or other units of measurement, like "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole"), we're doing that out of protection for ourselves, disgust, or fear. If you can't catch being gay, then why is it a problem? To say you don't want men hitting on you isn't necessarily homophobic, because you're not attracted to them - it's not a whole lot different than saying you don't want women you're not attracted to hitting on you. It's the special standard that does it.
If gay men are insisting that something's wrong with straight men, yes, that's a crappy thing to do. If they don't want to be any closer than an arm's length away, then I suppose you could use "heterophobe" - again, it would have to be the special standard applied to only straight people. But the sheer numbers of people suggest that it's not very likely that a gay person could really enforce such a thing, as the majority of people in the world aren't gay. I've never personally known a gay person who thinks that straight people are "wrong", but of course, I don't know all the gay people in the world, so it's totally possible (nay, probable!) that people like that exist. And they're being crappy for it. But that's not really the issue at hand. The issue is talking about how assumptions and homophobia are enacted, and why it bothers people. I'm guessing that the forum members who are reacting strongly are close to GLBTQ people, or are GLBTQ themselves. It tends to hit a little closer to home, and there's a certain amount of emotional engagement that's really hard to explain to someone who isn't affected like you are. If you're a straight man, you've never experienced the fear that comes from a gay-bashing. I can't explain it to you - it's not the same as getting beaten up on the playground. And the connections that are made between a casually homophobic comment and the attitudes that affect our lives negatively can seem like exaggerations or overreactions to people who aren't in the same position. When I hear someone around me make a homophobic comment, everything changes for me - is this person dangerous? Do they know about me? How deep does this go, and how am I going to handle being around a person like this? It's never an easy thing.
But my goodness, this is getting TL;DR!
Short version: GLBTQ people are probably going to see a homophobic comment in a very, very different light than someone who isn't GLBTQ!
-
Cabbagehut, for someone who spent their first few posts apologizing for not getting your message across, you've said that extremely well.
Homophobia (and racism, and sexism, and...) has to be in the eye of the beholder. Because if the perpetrator (and I do not use that term lightly) could see it, then they wouldn't use it.
El Flesh, you may or may not believe it, but you have shown the world (OK, this forum at least) that you are in fact homophobic. Regardless of how you treat your homosexual "friends".
Sorry.
I hope you'll eventually come to terms with it, although I know it's unlikely.
-
I don't fear gay guys; I respect their right to live and pursue what they wish (I even advocate their right to marry) but I am revolted by seeing gay sex and gay kissing.
Doesn't it burn up a lot of energy unnecessarily to prevent that from interfering with your obligation to treat gay people as people?
If positions were reversed, would you be comfortable with the friendship of someone who considered your love life revolting?
Do you consider your gut reaction to be something you should work to overcome?
-
This isn't meant to say that feelings of offense are invalid or wrong, just that you and YOU ALONE are responsible for your actions and feelings.
I fully accept that I am responsible for my actions and feelings. But the corollary of that is that every other adult is fully and solely responsible for their words and actions. Recognising offensive words and actions and responding to them is one way one holds others accountable for their actions. To suggest that some people are entitled to be treated more indulgently than others is to divide the world into aristocrats and serfs. You know, just like real life...
Homophobia (and racism, and sexism, and...) has to be in the eye of the beholder. Because if the perpetrator (and I do not use that term lightly) could see it, then they wouldn't use it.
That is a hugely generous assessment, Carl. Many people are neither ignorant nor ashamed of their bigotry. Instead they feel fully entitled to see people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. as second-class citizens, or indeed as not really human at all. Sure they don't like it when they're called out on it, and people label them "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" etc. but that's just ducking responsibility.
-
I personally don't like people assuming things about me. While I feel more strongly negative about them assuming false things about me, any assumption made will be either far too simplistic to be relevant to anything or completely out of context.
Anyway, the error Padma made was the automatic nature of the assumption, not the fact that the assumption had to do with homosexuality. I would think slightly less of her (i.e. lower my opinion of her ability to make and follow through with good choices) for the assumption, because she was speaking and acting based on an unconfirmed assumption, except that she seems merely dense. The kind of dense with the capacity to learn from mistakes, which is almost better than...non-dense.
Everyone judges, and everyone assumes. We take our basic ideas about people's attributes and apply other characteristics to that person, based on what we think about those attributes. We rarely have good reasons for these assumptions, since many are imprinted at a young age, and if not altered during adolescence generally remain, but there they are. We all do what Padma did, even if it is subconscious. It's a way to categorize others, and it's pretty well instinctive. As for the acting on unconfirmed assumptions, most people filter others' behaviour through their assumptions, and so it becomes confirmed to them, and so they treat the other person like their assumption is true. It's a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
That's not to say that we shouldn't monitor these assumptions, and try to correct them when they are found to be wrong. Trying to be open minded and fair about things is very important. There are whole theories dedicated to trying to remove prejudice and discrimination.
-
Homophobia (and racism, and sexism, and...) has to be in the eye of the beholder. Because if the perpetrator (and I do not use that term lightly) could see it, then they wouldn't use it.
That is a hugely generous assessment, Carl. Many people are neither ignorant nor ashamed of their bigotry. Instead they feel fully entitled to see people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. as second-class citizens, or indeed as not really human at all. Sure they don't like it when they're called out on it, and people label them "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" etc. but that's just ducking responsibility.
I suppose it is generous, but maybe I need to explain where it came from a little better. People who genuinely hold such opinions really do see these "other" people as second (or even lower) class people, and that was my point. By doing so, they've removed the responsibility of empathy, and are free to treat these "others" as less than themselves, and maybe even less than human.
When I said "...if the perpetrator could see it, then they wouldn't use it", I meant to imply that they don't see it, that they need to have their eyes opened to the fact that these "others" are on par with themselves, equally human, and deserving of equal treatment. They need to obtain empathy for the "others" in some way. And I also mentioned later in the post that it will probably never happen.
A person with these opinions and beleifs will readily acknowledge them, even flaunt them, since they beleive they are correct. There needs to be some education, as skelpunk intimated in his (her?) post. damn gendered pronouns...
So I don't think I was being overly generous, just pointing out a dismal fact. Maybe it was your prejudicial opinion that I'm just a nice person that made you see it as so generous! :angel:
-
I suppose I am going a bit off topic with this but it might offer a, theoretically anyway, less charged comparison for the question of assumptions and reactions in the context of homophobia. I was a Christian until a couple of years ago, I am an atheist now, I have had people assume that I was a Christian either because of work that I did or because a lot of people tend to be christian they just sort of took it as the default. Does it bother me to be assumed as a christian...sort of but it doesn't annoy me as much because I also know I used to be one. I have known some of my friends who are christian who get irritated if they get mistaken for atheists, conservatives, liberals, whatever because of their branch of faith or something similar. In one case I had a friend finally snap angrily "Yes, I am a christian, yes I am pro choice, quit assuming that I am anti-womens rights as it is REALLY irritating."
Is it the same as someone assuming you're gay, not exactly but I think it does show that some people get irritated by being assumed to be something they aren't. I was at a party, struck up a conversation with a woman that interested me, asked her out, and she rather angrily told me that she was a lesbian and asked why I would assume she was straight. I have had people assume I was gay, and I have had them try to attack me for it so yeah, I do react a little bit more...negatively shall we say. Does a person who is offended by being assumed gay have to be branded homophobic? I think it's based on the reasons why they feel that way. After all, I don't assume that people who are offended at being thought atheists, liberals, conservatives, etc. have a phobia of those things, they are merely irritated at being prejudged.
That's my take, and I probably garbled a few things anyhow and made an irrelevant comparison, but meh.
-
Well, thanks, Carl-E! I have a tendency to ramble and lose my focus, so I worry that I'm not quite making sense, or that I'm using the wrong words or something.
Blackjoker, I'm sorry if it seemed I was linking Christianity to homophobia. They're linked in my friend, but not for all people! Actually, when we talked about how I felt about her homophobia, she asked me, puzzled, "But you knew when you met me I was a Christian. What did you expect?", and I told her that there are many kinds of Christians, so one never knows. When she said she was a Christian, I assumed she probably believed in a God and a Jesus, but you can't know a whole lot beyond that.
Does a person who is offended by being assumed gay have to be branded homophobic? I think it's based on the reasons why they feel that way.
I think that's what a lot of us have been trying to get at. If you're irritated at being assumed to be gay because it happens ALL THE TIME and you're tired of correcting people (like a poster mentioned earlier), no, that's not homophobic. If you're irritated because eew, gays are gross, you'd like to not be associated with that, or it threatens your masculinity, yeah, that's homophobic.
-
Well, thanks, Carl-E! I have a tendency to ramble and lose my focus, so I worry that I'm not quite making sense, or that I'm using the wrong words or something.
Blackjoker, I'm sorry if it seemed I was linking Christianity to homophobia. They're linked in my friend, but not for all people! Actually, when we talked about how I felt about her homophobia, she asked me, puzzled, "But you knew when you met me I was a Christian. What did you expect?", and I told her that there are many kinds of Christians, so one never knows. When she said she was a Christian, I assumed she probably believed in a God and a Jesus, but you can't know a whole lot beyond that.
Does a person who is offended by being assumed gay have to be branded homophobic? I think it's based on the reasons why they feel that way.
I think that's what a lot of us have been trying to get at. If you're irritated at being assumed to be gay because it happens ALL THE TIME and you're tired of correcting people (like a poster mentioned earlier), no, that's not homophobic. If you're irritated because eew, gays are gross, you'd like to not be associated with that, or it threatens your masculinity, yeah, that's homophobic.
Oh, I wasn't thinking that homophobia and christianity were linked. I just used the comparison because it is something I have personally experienced and figured it might work as a useful different context.
-
Y'all know what happens when you assume, right.
You make an ass of u and me.
-
Does a person who is offended by being assumed gay have to be branded homophobic? I think it's based on the reasons why they feel that way.
I think that's what a lot of us have been trying to get at. If you're irritated at being assumed to be gay because it happens ALL THE TIME and you're tired of correcting people (like a poster mentioned earlier), no, that's not homophobic. If you're irritated because eew, gays are gross, you'd like to not be associated with that, or it threatens your masculinity, yeah, that's homophobic.
There's a difference between being offended because assumptions are made about you (some of us are, some aren't - see below) and just being plain old offended by gays, as El Flesh's "arm's length" comment indicates, despite his/her interactions with them.
Would you be equally judgemental of a woman being offended by someone saying to her "You're a woman? I assumed you were a man!" (or vice versa). Or "You're just fat? I assumed you were pregnant!"
The fact is, few people would be judgemental of someone who got offended by comments like that. It's natural to get upset when other people make assumptions. If they're made once or twice, most people will just laugh it off, but it will still disturb others. Same when it happens repeatedly - some people get disturbed, some don't (a lesbian friend of mine considers it a point of pride when she's mistaken for a man, though she doesn't consider herself as "passing" - that might just be denial of the next step on her journey, though). And as several posts have pointed out before this, if you're repeatedly assumed to be something you aren't, it's natural to get upset to various degrees. Being upset about being assumed you're gay when you're not isn't necessarily homophobia.
But if you're upset by it because you find gays offensive, then yes, it really is!
Looking at this I realize I haven't added anything to the conversation that hasn't already been said - consider it a summary! :psyduck: