Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:24:20PM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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?)

Hmm, well, I can't say that I had one perfect result and means to achieve it
in mind, it was (for me) a bit more experimental than that. 

Look, we get lots of hate mail. Much of it is just hateful gibberish, and
I've tried to learn to ignore that which seems unredeemable or mindless.

However, some hate mail we get, and I think gay bashing is a good example,
seems to me to demand some kind of response since it seems to indicate a
person with real psychological issues. And, to be honest, verbal gay bashing
strikes me as the kind of thing that can escalate into real violence, and
it's the kind of thing that I've had some personal experience with, such
that I think in some cases I have some obligation to take it seriously
enough to consider a serious response. (In the interests of disclosure, I
thought, until starting high school, that ay men were gross, certainly
"sinful", and probably crazy. I've worked consistently since then to rid
myself of these myths, and I've never gay bashed anyone; but I have been
homophobic (in the literal sense) and so it's something I can at least
partially understand.)

I tend to think that some gay bashing is simply an expression of social
dominance and ignorance, not of repressed gay desire, and I tend to think
that using the 'are you sure you're not gay?' tactic against these sorts can
be effective. At least, the gay rights groups that use it thusly make a
persuasive case, and I've used it with homophobic male friends, most of whom
I think are straight, a few of whom probably aren't, and it's been effective.

But that's *not* what I was trying to do with Bob, whose gay bashing still
strikes me as qualitatively different. Now, about that, I may well be wrong.
It's hard to know. But that's the judgment I reached.

So my tactic (and I probably biased the whole conversation by using "tactic"
in a too loose way) was to make a sincere, honest, non-mocking,
non-escalatory, but *pointed* appeal to Bob to examine himself critically
and closely.

I.e., the tactic, such as it was, was meant to say to someone who still
strikes me as deeply repressed: "look, you really sound like you are
repressing some gay desire, which would account for the unacceptable gay
bashing; but you don't have to remain repressed and frustrated and hateful:
being repressed is not good for you, dealing with your sexuality would be
very good for you. Consider seeking help."

I probably executed this very poorly, but, by way of mitigation, it was a
"draft" response, so I didn't take as much care with it as I would have the
real thing.

In short, as vehement as Bob's gay bashing was, I sympathize with those
homophobes who are actually repressed gay men: it must be a *terrible*
psychological weight, there is some sense in which they are maladapting to
society's oppression and heterosexism -- points Dru made very well, I think
-- and it struck me that I should make at least some attempt to separate the
non-gay homophobes (who range from knuckleheads to violent maniacs) from
those who may be repressing their real desire by acting homophobically.

In short, and provisionally, I think a repressed gay man who's maladapted by
becoming homophobic is no less socially oppressed than the out gay men he
bashes; the oppressions are *different* but they are both oppressed, even if
the homophobe is also an active agent of his own oppression directed at
others.

That's probably old hat to everyone else, but I think I just actively
realized this in the past few days, and my trial balloon message to Bob was
my attempt to take account of that realization with whatever meager
sensitivity and integrity I could muster.

Kendall