Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

I agree mostly with Dave Rolsky when he makes the point that it is immoral,
and underline where he says "hypothetical homosexuality".

I found the first paragraph even funny.
I would also have found acceptable the second one; where the feeling of
antipathy for gay bashing is expressed. Altough I would not have written it.

But I had a bad impression of the paragraph where you make reference to a
study...

Here I try to find the reasons which made me not like it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kendall Clark" <kclark-fVPt/[email protected]>
To: <bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Bonobos] Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

(Original message freely intermixed with the answer)


> 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.

That you could have done effectevely using the first paragraph alone:

> > Hmm, well, while it's strange to start coming to terms with your own
> > sexuality on a public mailing list full of strangers, "Uncle Bob",
> > we're certainly not going to like you any less if you are gay or, as
> > you seem to prefer it, one of the "closeted queers" who "seem to be
> > everywhere".

You are saying:
- you've just expressed you're sexual orientation on a public, political
mailing list full of strangers, where most take the position of not being
interested on other people's sexual options.
- you where bashing at gay people; are you so sure of your own sexuality,
and desires?

The second paragraph is a little more violent, but is fair enough to show
the poster that people will not take gay bashing nicely... But it is wrong
if you truly believe what you wrote.

And the rest is a bit wrong both morally and technically.

You try to justify what you wrote in the second paragraph with a study???
I'm sure you don't think that you can make any psychoanalisys from a single
posting; and you say it:

> 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.

Naturally you can use it, but it is a tactic, of course. It's not that you
believe that someone who says something homophobic is gay! Naturally
homophoby is an expression of the repression of homosexual desires. But
obviously someone who is gay is someone who does not repress his homosexual
desires! That is the confusion that is made afterwards. To have homosexual
desire is not the same as being homosexual.

That is a tactic; a small joke, to get people into not bashing at gay
people.
It is not something to then justify with a study! like saying: there is a
study which proves that people that bash at gays are homosexual. That
wouldn't be very honest.

> 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.

Does it?
Tell me; what is, for you, 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.

Are you trying to justify your use of slightly incorrect means?

> 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."

Here you've gone the furthermost possible!
Not only you are implying that the person is homosexual and should admit it;
but also, you are being paternalist and arrogant saying "Consider seeking
help."


> 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.

My very dear friend, through that sympathy, which looks more like pity, you
are implying that there is no such conflict in you. Are there non-gay
homophobes and gay ones? Again, I repeat, is it possible to be a gay
homophobe? If you repress your homosexual desires, you are not homosexual.
Never in the sense that you intend; in the sense that is commonly used.

Is it that this reveals the presumption that there is no homosexual desire
inside you? (because you're a non-gay homophobe...)


> 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.

Anyway, give all this, although you may say it is an effective tactic, I
myself restrain from persuading other people to not bash at homosexuals by
using bashing. I understand that others may prefer otherwise.
But again, you didn't just use that tactic.


One thing that can't be acceptable, is to use some hypothetical
psychoanalisys as if it was true.
Naturally when a term like homosexuality is used in psychoanalisys, and very
particularly in Freud, it does not mean the desire of practicing sex with
members of the same sex, or the desire of getting together for life with a
member of the same sex; even though it could include those.
To intermix such different concepts in the same short message; to imply
"there is scientific evidence that..."; doesn't seem to me very correct.


Miguel Ramos