Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Dave Rolsky wrote:

> > 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.

I'm still lost on what's *wrong* with the hostility. If it's hostile
*about gaybashing*, that's one thing. An ok thing. I'm very hostile to gay
bashing. Frankly, unless "Uncle Bob" showed some remorse or engagement, i
think being hostile to *him* is just fine.

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

Well, I think if Kendall was evidencing hostility toward *gays* generally,
that would be bad. You've not convinced me that that's so.

It's not yet clear that straights using this tactic are unwelcome to gay
rights advocates. After all, kendall didn't *say* he was straight, so he
wasn't trying to dodge the possible ire he may have aroused.

[snip]
> > 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.  

Duh. That's why we're discussing it.

> 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.

Is this specific to Kendall's actually note, or a fact about the
tactic? That's something I'd like to keep separate.

> > 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.

Hmm. I guess. It could be just efficient or effective. Up to a certain
point, in certain contexts, it seems reasonable to forgo "moral
engagement". I'm not saying that this is one of the cases, but to point
out that there are other contexts wherein this tactic may be justified.

>  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.

Regardless of the new-ageyness, I don't see that it validates
it. How? Either Uncle Bob's homophobia is so strong that he'll refrain,
*or* he'll have his epiphany and get help (perhaps partially from
kendall).

I don't see how you can wiggle out of this one. Really. You pretty much
said that kendall would have been embracing homophobia and indulging in
some gay bashing. 

Hmm. I think I was sucked in by your use of "taunt". Why is it a
"taunt"? If, as it seems to be, kendall made it in complete sincerity, why
is suggesting that Bob might be repressing his homosexuality and offering
a forum to help out a *taunt*?

If being gay isn't bad to you, Dave, why do you read kendall this way?

[snip]

> > > 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.

No, you said that you can't imagine why kendall would have thought his
response would come off as sincere. Well, how about because it *was*
sincerely made? If so, the idea that it *was* a taunt is out the window
(though it might be *read* by Bob as such, but that's part of *his*
problem/homophobia, yes?)

I have trouble understanding why *you* think what *you* originally said
and what you claim to have said are remotely similar.

>  Moreover, I can't imagine why he'd think the original
> intended audioence, Uncle Bob, would think it was sincere.

Bob doesn't have to. If Bob, due to homophobia, reads it as insincere,
does that mean Kendall shouldn't offer?

> > 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.

*You* are being rude and hostile. *Your* langauge was over the top. Mine
can be read perfectly straightforwardly.

It blows my mind time and again that you can continually claim that
"gentleness" and "tactical delicacy" are needed in such a radically
hamfisted manner.

>  I don't know why but I think its uncalled
> for.

Well, Dave, obviously I thought it was. There's some information to
extract from that, isn't there? Like, for example, that your tactics
aren't working on me.

[snip]
> > 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.

I'm not yet seeing "validate" either. I have some ideas about that tactic
might be problematic, but I don't know if any of them correspond to *your*
ideas.

> > 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.

Ok, that's somewhat clearer. But what exactly is the problem? (not
suggesting there isn't one, but trying to nail it down):

1) It's a bit of expressed homophobia (but put to a good cause?)
2) It's likely to harm Bob qua gay man (reverse bash)
3) It's likely to harm Bob qua straight homophobe (I don't care)
4) It's likely to harm gays on the list (sorta "collateral damage")
5) It's likely to harm gays generally (by reinforcing homophobia)
6) It'd be ok if Kendall were gay, regardless of these other factors (this
is possible)
7) It'd be ok if Kendall were gay, but because that'd mitigate these other
factors.

It's worth asking whether this is a good strategy for *anyone*. (It's
worth asking exactly what the strategy is, as many of us, myself,
included, seem to be reading perhaps more into it than was
intended. Kendall?)

> > <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.

Well, there we agree :)

>  But I think that this
> particular tactic just sends the wrong message (for reasons I've discussed
> above).

To whom?

>  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.

Yes, except kendall didn't *say* "Are you afraid you're one of them?" He
didn't say anything to uncle bob about his *own* sexuality. You just
*assumed* kendall was straight (well, because he *is* straight :)).

"You know, people who mock gays are often repressing the fact that they're
gay. Maybe you should explore that side of you. I stand in support of that
exploration."

> 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?

I just don't understand that. Er...if we don't join in with tactics that
gays use, aren't we separating ourselves from "them"?

> 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).

er...I really can't believe that what you think is wrong is that it
"highlights a separation" that makes it harder for you to not see sexual
preference as not a place where there is an "us" and "them".

I mean, at least kendall tried something. Where was *your* response to
Uncle Bob? Or, for that matter, to the fundies?

(Where was mine? :))

(Actually, mine was swollowed because I came up with the same tactic but
felt that Uncle Bob was too tiresome to bother with, and then Edd's
excellent response came along to the other folks.)

So, dave, what's your alternative response? How do *you* handle Uncle
Bob? Hell, we still haven't dealt with him, and you, for one, have
provided nothing positive (not that one necessarily has to, in order to
criticize). So, show us how!

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.