Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> > 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.

What's wrong with hostility is that it has the potential to turn off
people more reachable than Uncle Bob.  Uncle Bob seems to be mostly a lost
cause.  But perhaps there are other people who would find Kendall's
response inappropriate and thus not want to listen to him further on the
issue.  Or worse, they might want to discuss the issue (homophobia)
further at all.  I think that the potential losses here are greater than
the potential gains.

> > 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.

I wasn't trying to convince you Kendall was being generally hostile
towards gays.  I think we can both agree that Kendall is not generally
hostile to gays.  In fact, we agreed to that in our last exchange.

> > 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.

I'm not sure.  Maybe if I read a range of possible responses along similar
lines I could figure out if it was the tactic or this one response.

I think the tactic itself makes me fairly uncomfortable for reasons I
already discussed.

> > 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 agree that it is sometimes resonable to forgo moral engagements.  I
think this is particularly true when dealing with people are _very_
strongly homophobic (or racist, or whatever).

But I think this is a very personal issue in terms of how one approaches
activism in general and varies quite a bit from person to person.  If you
honestly think this is a good way to spend your energy, then I sincerely
wish you good luck.  And if you had success, I'd sincerely congratulate
you (hell, I'd be in awe of you!).

> 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.

I think you're engaging in some rather creative interpretation of my
original response.  I did not mean to suggest, either overtly or covertly,
that Kendall was indulging in gay bashing.  And as I said, embracing was
the wrong word to use.

I _did_ mean to say that I thought Kendall's response could be viewed, by
a third party, as homophobic, because it engaged Uncle bob on his own
terms.  I think it is an inappropriate and unhelpful response for that
reason, but I don't think that means Kendall is a raging homophobe, just
that that particular response would be easily read in a way other than
what was intended.

I just read Kendall's message explaining why he would use such a response,
and it was very interesting and, I believe, quite sincere.  But I think
that without that accompanying explanation, its very hard to see his good
intentions, particularly for the intended recipient (Uncle Bob).

> 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 I know you're very sensitive about the size of your nose and I start
making comments about your nose, isn't that a taunt?  I may have no
particular dislike of your big nose but if I can make use of _your_
feelings to taunt you, right?  That doesn't mean that I actually care
about nose size, but I'm engaging you on your terms and therefore giving
the appearance of caring about nose size.

> 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 couldn't imagine that Kendall would have thought that his response would
come off as sincere to Uncle Bob.  That was my point.

> 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.

I'd say my discomfort with Kendall's response as a potential tactic was
because of #'s 1, 4, 5, and maybe 6/7.  In regards to #'s 6 and 7, both
Kellan and your reponses have made me think about my original statement
that it would be okay for gays, but not for straights.  Obviously, that
kind of thinking opens a huge can of worms.  There's a slippery slope in
either direction.

Suffice it to say, if a gay man were to use that tactic I'd probably be
less likely to criticize, if only on the theory that as someone who is a
direct victim of the particular oppression being fought that they deserve
even more of the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, blindly assuming that Kendall is straight is completely
homophobic on my part.

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

To third parties who might be in 'hearing range'.  I discussed this a bit
above.

> 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 :)).

That would be my homophobia.  I just assumed he was straight, which is
wrong to do.

> "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."

I guess I'm a cynic but I can't see how Kendall (or anyone) could say that
to someone with an attitude like Uncle Bob's and not expect to sound
taunting.  Maybe with the explanation it would sound better.

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

See above.  For me, I don't really see a lot of value to directly engaging
every crazy and fundie that I come across.  In this case, Uncle Bob was
simply trying to get a rise out of the list.  Why humor him?

> 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!

My suggestion would be that in the context of this email list he should
simply be ignored.  There are only so many hours in the day and only so
much energy in a body.  There's a lot of people out there who act in ways
that oppresive to others who are _much_ more receptive to education.

I think Dru's original article was excellent and probably had a good
impact on many open minded readers (I myself felt like I benefited from it
in terms of understanding my own homophobia).  I think more of that sort
of thing would be more useful than engaging the fundies.

For me, a short list of imperfect people who are receptive to change
includes my friends, my family, the people I work with, people with whom I
engage on other topics (such as at a programmer's conference), and last
but not definitely not least, myself.

All of the people in that list are _far_ more likely to listen to me when
I talk about homophobia, racism, sexism, or animal rights.  And some of
them have even ended up changing their minds.  I just don't see that
progress with Uncle Bob is possible in the context of this email list.


-dave

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