Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Dave Rolsky wrote:

[snip]
> To me, it comes off as taunting the original poster (Uncle Bob) with the
> idea that he might be gay.

Yes, that's presumably part of the point. Of course, it's not *merely*
that he's gay, or even that he's gay and homophobic (there are such, after
all). I don't think Kendall would endorse such a tactic against someone
who was out (at least to themselves).

The tactic as I understand it is to link gay-bashing with repressed
homosexuality so that the putatitve gay-basher sorta explodes in a
feedback loop. I.e., either shuts up (to avoid seeming "gay") or comes to
some epiphany about gay bashing.

It doesn't have to be *hostile* *per se*. I've had it work to bring
folks toward real (in so far as I can tell) tolorance.

>  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.

Hmm. I thought it was taunting him *as* a gay basher? Isn't it just giving
in to the notion that the *basher* thinks there's something bad about
homosexuality?

Frankly, I'll take bashers thinking that homosexuality is bad *if* they
also think that gay bashing is "gay" and so refrain from it. Refraining
from gay bashing is *good*.

> You're basically embracing his beliefs in order to taunt him.

Now that's just bullshit. Kendall doesn't have to believe anything to use
this tactic.

>  Because
> only if being gay is a bad and shameful thing could it then be considered
> something worth taunting someone about.

At the very least, the taunting is of the (putative) *hypocrisy* involved.

> It doesn't seem all that much different than calling him a "cocksucker" in
> a derogatory manner.

Wow. Ok. Whatever.

["c'sucker" analogy elided]

Intragroup use of degrogatory terms is often vastly different than
intergroup use. That's all I have to say about that.

> I can't imagine why you'd think your response would come off as sincere.

Does it have to? If Uncle Bob *did* have an epiphany, Kendall would be
sympathetic and helpful.

I can imagine one reason he'd have thought so: It *was* sincere.
Apparently that's beyond your imagination.

> 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.

Well, there's at least two possible scenarios, Uncle Bob is repressed or
Uncle Bob is (merely) a homophobic jerk. In either case, we'd like him to
change his behavior. Preferably while not cause or participating in more
overall harm/injustice.

I'm, in general, *not* fond of "making folks experience the
oppression" tactics. Well, I am, sorta. It can be enjoyable, but that's
what worries me about it.

*But*, aside from glee at turning the tables (which is not at all a reason
to endorse a tactic) there's the question of 1) whether it's effective,
2) whether it's acceptible. The only reason you've offered thus far is
that, supposedly, Kendall embraces homophobia in using this tactic. That,
and the fact that it would enrage Bob.

Now, I'm *not* sure in what sense kendall is supposed to have embraced
homophobia, so I'll put that to one side.

That he could *seem* to be embracing/expressing homophobia is a problem,
but exactly one he raised in soliciting advice. The problematicity of this
rests in the harm done (mostly) to third parties either directly, or by
encouraging other gay bashers (though spreading the meme that being
overtly gay bashing is a sign of being gay in the gay bashing community
would *seem* to encourage a reduction in gay bashing, which is the point
of the tactic; of course, it seems that there are times when that tactic
causes and *escalation* in brutality, which would be a good reason to
*avoid* it).

Hmm. So that's a bit tangled, but I take it the point is reasonably clear.

In some ways, this tactic seems similar to outing. Which, itself, is
tricky :)

<sigh/> Ok, I'm not up for untangling this. That's why I suggested that
kendall solicit comment from the list. But I don't quite see that your
comments engaged the complexity of the tactic. Or, if it's simply a matter
that it's a clear no-no, why not just *say* that? I mean, do you really
think this was kendall indulging the homophobic side of his nature?

On the other side of things, it seems that something *like* this tactic is
actually used by gay rights groups:

http://www.tatchell.freeserve.co.uk/homophobia/bigots%20are%20buggers.htm

That doesn't make it right or acceptible, or make *kendall's* use of it
right and acceptible. But still:

"""This research is political dynamite. As OutRage! has already
demonstrated with the letter to MPs, it can be used very effectively to
ridicule and embarrass homophobes; deflating their bigotry by casting
doubt on their heterosexuality.

I nowadays always make a point of referring to Prof. Adams's research when
doing talks in schools. It stops homophobic pupils in their
tracks. Previously loud-mouthed bigots suddenly go quiet. One teacher told
me that the level of homophobic banter in the classroom had declined
significantly since my revelations about Prof. Adams's findings. What a
pleasing thought. Thank you Prof. Adams."""

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.