Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Bijan Parsia 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.

Ok, fair enough.  But I think it would be widely viewed as hostile whether
or not that's what intended.  Or more to the point, it comes off as
hostile to me.

Hostile isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, but in this case I don't
think its a good tactic.

> >  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?

That latter question seems to be walking a very fine line to me.  As to
the first, it certainly didn't seem apparent to me from reading Kendall's
response.  It seemed like the taunt was about the fact that Uncle Bob
might be gay.

> 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*.

The implicit assumption here is that its highly unlikely that you'll be
able to get gay bashers to simply think that gay bashing is bad because
its immoral.  I grant you that, but I want to explicitly state that
assumption, because that greatly influences your goals and tactics.

> > 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.

I think embracing was the wrong word.  Maybe validating?  I avoided that
word in my original response because it has new age-y touchy-feely
implications but it probably is a better word.  I never meant to imply
that Kendall was embracing homophobia.

> > 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 agree.  But this is intergroup, right?  I don't think Kendall and Uncle
Bob belong to the same group (and I'm sure you don't think that either).

I think I'm completely missing your point here though.  I'm not sure how
this is relevant to either Kendall's first post or my response.

> > 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.

It doesn't have to come off as sincere.  I was just commenting on the fact
that Kendall said he was being sincere.  I was saying it didn't sound
sincere to me.  Moreover, I can't imagine why he'd think the original
intended audioence, Uncle Bob, would think it was sincere.

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

You're being rude and hostile.  I don't know why but I think its uncalled
for.

> *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.

Like I said, embraced was the wrong word.

> That he could *seem* to be embracing/expressing homophobia is a problem,

Exactly, and it *seemed* that way to me.  Though scratch "embracing",
which is much too strong, and use expressing or validating instead.

> <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?

To the latter question, I'd say definitely not.  But I think that this
particular tactic just sends the wrong message (for reasons I've discussed
above).  Is it a total no-no, I'm not sure.  See below.

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

I'm a bit leary of this as well, but the different between these is:

 "You know, people who mock gays are often repressing the fact that
  they're gay.  Are you afraid you're one of us?"

vs.

 "You know, people who mock gays are often repressing the fact that
  they're gay.  Are you afraid you're one of them?"

I think that us vs. them bit makes a huge difference.

The reason I think that difference is important is that if I mock someone
for being gay, for being one of _them_, I've deliberately separated myself
from that other group (gay people).  Why highlight that separation?

What I want is for there to be no us and them when it comes to sexual
preference (and for many other things as well).  The only time this should
be important is when you are romantically inclined towards someone and
need to know whether its possible that they could return the feeling.
Other than that, I don't want to care (and I think the fact that I _do_
care reflects my own homophobia).


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/