Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:05:07AM -0000, Miguel Ramos muttered something about:
> 
> I agree mostly with Dave Rolsky when he makes the point that it is immoral,
> and underline where he says "hypothetical homosexuality".

What's immoral? I didn't see that point made about anything.

> 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...

Of course the problem with this, Miguel, is that only two of the paragraphs
were part of the *draft* note to Bob. The rest of it following the "###",
including reference to the study, were *not* part of the draft. I.e., Bob
wouldn't have seen the stuff about the study, so it seems odd to criticize
me for saying that to him.

> > 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:

Well, I'm not sure I agree, but that's fine: I never said *this* instance of
the tactic was especially honed or even what I wanted *feedback* on; what I
expressly asked for was some advice about the tactic *per se*. There is a
difference, after all, and it's one that matters.

> 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.

*Violent*. That's odd.

> 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:

Of course not and that's not remotely what I did. The point of the study
after all was the "4 out of 5" number which, if it's roughly correct, gives
us some general indication that among men who express homophobic attitudes
or beliefs a great many more of them are repressing some, as I think the
study put it, 'gay desire' than are merely being nasty, oppressive, mean,
what have you.

You may not find that an interesting fact, if fact it is, but I do; of
course it doesn't *mean* anything with regard to any particular individual,
but it does give one some indication of the the "population of men who
express themselves homophobically", and it gives an indication very much
unlike the one I previously had.

> > 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.

Note *some*; that is, I'm trying to distinguish in a very rough way between
homophobia that's motivated by repressed gay desire and homophobia that
isn't motivated by repressed gay desire.

And I do so because I think in general one can or should use different
tactics of response to the different groups, primarily because if a person
has repressed gay desire to the extent that they are maladapting to it by
acting homophobically, then that at least *suggests* to me a possibility
that they may be repressed gay men.

As for whether it's some kind of category mistake to say that a person can
be a "gay homophobe", well, I'm just not using the words in any strictly
technical sense that implies a contradiction.

That is, I'm drawing a largely implicit analogy between repressed gay men
(or even repressed bisexual men) who act homophobically (*because* it's a
maladaption to social oppression) and, say, women who act sexistly as a
maladapated survival strategy in the face of patriarchy or people of color
who act racistly as a maladapted survival strategy in the face or racism.

Now, I may be wrong about that analogy, but I don't see that it's obviously
wrong and I haven't heard anything to so far in this thread to suggest that
it is.

> 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. 

Well, according to the APA study, it *often* but isn't *always* the case
that it is caused by repression.

I think that's where we are miscommunicating: I have no reason to believe
that homophobia is *always* caused by repressed gay desire. And I do have
some empirical scientific data which, *provisionally*, suggests that there
is some homophobia not motivated by repressed gay desire.

Again, that's the distinction I'm interested in exploring the tactical
implications of. If you're not interested in that, fine. I don't think
you're obligated to be.

  But
> obviously someone who is gay is someone who does not repress his homosexual
> desires! That is the confusion that is made afterwards. 

No, I think this is a misreading. In the way I used the terms, a person can
be gay but have repressed his gay desire very deeply, even to the extent
that he functions heterosexually, has children, and the like. In fact, under
the obviously painful psychological strain of such a painful and
socially-enforced situation, a person might maladapt to such pressures by
acting homophobically.

> That is a tactic; a small joke, to get people into not bashing at gay
> people.

You misread. I neither intended nor made any jokes, small or otherwise.

> 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.

Sorry, I don't follow. While the conclusions of this and any other study
need to be carefully examined, I don't go for a general skepticism about
empirical inquiry to any significant practical degree.

> > 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?

Well, I think it does. Have you any reasons to suggest that taking public
expressions of hatred to strangers is *never* psychologically significant?

> Tell me; what is, for you, a person with real psychological issues?

What I meant, and should have said more clearly, was a person who is
operating under the stress and strain of deep repression.

> > 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?

No, I've used no means, and that's the whole bloody point of all of this! :>

I'm trying to sort out when or if the means I've *proposed* are ever
appropriate, under what conditions, in what contexts, employed by which
agents, and the like.

So, no, to answer your question: whether my "means" are incorrect or
correct, I'm not trying to justify them since I haven't used them yet. I've
only *asked* about whether, when, how, and by whom they *might* be used.

Gee, I thought I had made that very clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

> 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."

We will have to disagree about that; I think it neither paternalistic nor
arrogant per se to suggest to someone, sincerely and w/out any hint of
stigma or shame, that they should seek therapeutic treatment.

Of course you can make that suggestion in a paternalistic and arrogant way,
and I suppose that's what you take me to have done. Can you give me any
reasons why I should concur in that judgment? I.e., under what conditions is
a recommendation to seek counseling paternalistic and arrogant? Under what
conditions is it friendly and supportive?

> 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? 

Yes, as I've said now repeatedly, as clearly as I am able, I think there are
some people who act homophobically because they are repressing gay desire
and there are other people who act homophobically for other reasons.

As for whether there is some conflict in me, I think when I've acted
homophobically (which I think is fairly rare these days) it was not because
I was repressing gay desire. Of course I may be wrong about that since my
angle of vision into my own interior is murky at best. But, as far as I can
tell, I was not motivated in my homophobic actions by repression.

But if I were, well, I'm not sure what you would take that to mean, and I
don't think I would be unduly troubled to learn that about myself (except
insofar as it would hurt people very close to me, like my wife).

Is this what you were asking?

As for the distinction between pity and sympathy, I leave such fine
judgments to you.

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

I'm not aware of any sexual desire I have for men, in general, nor do I
recall specific instances of sexual desire for specific men. If your point
is that all men have some sexual desire for other men, I suspect I don't
agree, unless you mean *unconscious* sexual desire, and about that I
wouldn't be able to say, it being unconscious.

Have I felt great warmth and affection even tenderness toward men? Yes, of
course. Has there ever been a man I really wanted to have sex with? No. I
hold out the possibility of politically bisexuality: i.e., if there were
some man I wanted to have sex with, I'd like to think I'd be honest enough
to admit that to myself, but so far it hasn't happened.

I'm not entirely sure why my having sexual desire for men is relevant, but
I've tried to answer honestly.

> 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.

I don't agree that I taunted Uncle Bob, nor do I agree that I bashed him.
Your reading obviously varies. Oh well.

> But again, you didn't just use that tactic.

Right, I didn't use it at all. I *mentioned* it. There's a difference.

It's odd to be bashed for having used X when what I did was ask "hey, what
do you all think X?" 

Mention != Use

thing that can't be acceptable, is to use some hypothetical
> psychoanalisys as if it was true.

Agreed. I didn't do that. See above. :>

> 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.

Right, I didn't do that. You are the first to bring up Freud specifically in
this conversation. I did not mean or imply anything about Freud from the
first. I suspect he's the first to note a link between homophobia and
repression but as far as I know the link has been taken up by nearly all
other major psychiatric theories and models. It's not as far as I'm
concerned any longer a strictly Freudian notion.

Thanks for your comments.

Kendall Clark