Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

OK, now I agree with Dave.  My schoolyard response was ill-considered. 
//mbz


On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 01:08  PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Kendall Clark wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "jack" == Jack McKinney <jack3743-XfrvlLN1Pqtfpb/[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>   jack> I think this guy is a BFing rump-ranger that is trying to
>>   jack> sound like he's straight.  Closet queers seem to be
>>   jack> everywhere.  Uncle Bob
>>
>> Hmm, well, while it's strange to start coming to terms with your own
>> sexuality on a public mailing list full of strangers, "Uncle Bob",
>> we're certainly not going to like you any less if you are gay or, as
>> you seem to prefer it, one of the "closeted queers" who "seem to be
>> everywhere".
>>
>> As for you interest in men who you take to be "BFing rump-ranger[s]",
>> well, that's kind of private too, and we don't really do personal ads
>> or anything, but I'm sure if you will seek counseling or psychiatric
>> help during this painful transition, from the extreme homophobia you
>> display above to a more healthy self-understanding, you can end up
>> finding a sexually satisfying relationship with just such a man, if
>> that's what you want.
>>
>> 				 ###
>>
>> Now what concerns me is that, while I mean this response sincerely, it
>> may cheapen or inappropriately problematize the real struggle gay men
>> sometimes go through in accepting their sexuality. Josh Baugher just
>> pointed to an APA study[1] that seems to show conclusive evidence for 
>> the
>> Freudian idea that extreme homophobia is a repression mechanism for
>> dealing with homosexual desire.
>>
>> So I'm wondering about this tactic... Should I as a straight man use
>> it or not? Should anyone use it? Does it "feel" weird or inappropriate
>> to others?
>
> To me, it comes off as taunting the original poster (Uncle Bob) with the
> idea that he might be gay.  Now, there's obviously nothing wrong with
> Uncle Bob (or anyone else) being gay.  So to taunt him about it is, to 
> me,
> to give in to the notion that there is something bad about 
> homosexuality.
> You're basically embracing his beliefs in order to taunt him.  Because
> only if being gay is a bad and shameful thing could it then be 
> considered
> something worth taunting someone about.
>
> It doesn't seem all that much different than calling him a "cocksucker" 
> in
> a derogatory manner.  Why would you think it was an insult to call a 
> man a
> cocksucker?  If you don't, then it doesn't make a good insult.  If you 
> do,
> then you're buying into homophobia.  Ok, your language is much more
> genteel and educated, but the sentiment just doesn't seem that 
> different.
>
> I can't imagine why you'd think your response would come off as sincere.
> It doesn't to me and I'm sure Uncle Bob wouldn't think so either.  I 
> think
> it would enrage him and would do little to help him move towards an
> understanding of his own hypothetical repressed homosexuality.
>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
>
> -dave
>
> /*==================
> www.urth.org
> We await the New Sun
> ==================*/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos