I have not watched the television program "Grey's Anatomy," but according to newspaper reports, an actor on the show, Isaiah Washington, called another actor on the program, T.R. Knight, a "faggot."
Washington then denied calling Knight "faggot," repeating the term. "Nope. Didn't happen. Didn't happen," although several people nearby heard him and confirmed that he said it. Eventually Washington acknowledged using "faggot" and promptly issued an abject, cringing, fulsome apology:
"I apologize to T.R., my colleagues, the fans of the show and especially the lesbian and gay community for using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance. I marred what should have been a perfect night for everyone who works on 'Grey's Anatomy.' I can neither defend nor explain my behavior. I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I've asked for help."
It went on and on: "With the support of my family and friends, I have begun counseling. I regard this as a necessary step toward understanding why I did what I did and making sure it never happens again. I appreciate the fact that I have been given this opportunity and I remain committed to transforming my negative actions into positive results, personally and professionally."
Does anyone believe Washington himself wrote this example of gushing loquacity? Clearly it was written by a public relations person. Why not a simple: "I said it; I was wrong to say it; I apologize"? The only thing it really says is, "Please, please, let me keep my job." Was it sincere? Well, no doubt Washington sincerely wants to keep his job.
"I can [not]…explain my behavior. …I have begun counseling…as a necessary step toward understanding why I did what I did…"
Oh blarney! He doesn't know why he did it? How about: "I think homosexuality is disgusting and I wanted to insult T.R. Knight as deeply as I could."
More irritating than his using "faggot" in the first place was his subsequent denial. Washington behaved like the little boy who denies he broke the lamp even though he was the only person in the room at the time. That doesn't seem very manly. Did he expect everyone around him to support his denial because he is a "star"? Did he think being a star means never having to say you're sorry?
Frankly, I am not sure that "faggot" is in the same category as what is nowadays coyly called "the N word," although putting it there seems to be the goal of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
To be sure, "faggot," like the derogatory term for blacks, is a hostile term that demeans a person by reducing him to one aspect of his being and indicating contempt for that particular aspect. And, to be sure, it is a word frequently on the lips of young male gay bashers and the straight youths yelling out of their car windows as they drive around gay enclaves of our major cities. But should it be unspeakable?
In general, I oppose trying to ban words just as I oppose the rigidities of most "political correctness." The point is not to ban words, but to discourage people from using them to insult other people. And we should not do that by trying forcibly to prevent people from using them but by trying to change people's attitudes toward gays so they will have no desire to use demeaning terms.
The people who want to ban words are all too easily tempted to try to ban books and films that contain those words no matter the widely varying contexts-affirmative, playful, ironic, historical-in which those words are used. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is a familiar example.
Is it even possible to ban "faggot"? After all, 30 years ago writer Larry Kramer published a rather lame satire he titled "Faggots." How would we deal with that? And if we want to ban "faggot" what about other abusive terms gays have been called: fairy, pansy, fruit homo, queer? Are we to ban those words as well? Is that a path we want to start down? Many of us have been called these words and most of us resent their use, but is that a justification for wholesale "linguistic cleansing"?
And finally, let's put to rest the hoary myth that "faggot" comes from some supposed medieval practice of using gay men as "kindling" for witches' pyres. According to Prof. Wayne Dynes' gay etymological dictionary "Homolexis," the word actually comes from a Scandinavian word meaning "heap" or "bundle" which later came to be used for a fat, slovenly woman. It began to be applied to effeminate gay men about 100 years ago. So, like pansy and fairy, faggot turns out to be just another reference to the belief that gay men are not masculine or fully male.
70 Comments for “‘Faggot’”
posted by James on
Thank you, Paul Varnell, for making my point–
“So, like pansy and fairy, faggot turns out to be just another reference to the belief that gay men are not masculine or fully male.”
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not fem.
We, as gays, suffer when we align ourselves with men who CHOOSE to express themselves in effeminate ways. “Faggot” means effeminate, not gay. I remember when Will called Jack a faggot–and I agree, except I wouldn’t have apologized later. If you want to be a “faggot,” go ahead, but don’t bring me down with you. A man takes responsibility for his actions, and if you CHOOSE effeminate behavior, then be willing to accept the consequences. Not everyone is going to like you, and not everyone has to like you–I won’t like you. I don’t have to.
posted by Essem on
Knight and Washington should have had a staredown, exchanged further racial and orientational epithets, exchanged a few blows, been dragged off each other, made to cool off, return and apologize reluctantly, later meet by chance and after more exchange of both insults and subtle signs of respect, go out for a drink and become friends…like men used to do it before they became dickless Oprahfied stumps. Pathetic from beginning to end.
posted by J.I.A.M.B. on
“We, as gays, suffer when we align ourselves with men who CHOOSE to express themselves in effeminate ways.
Oh, shut the hell up. Some people are just naturally fem. You know this, and I know this. The same could be said about your sexual orientation. Why do you choose to date men, when you can just suck it up and date a woman? James, it is fine not to be attracted to queeny men. No one has a problem with that, and no one is telling you to change your natural inclination to gravitate towards butch men, but telling people to repress their natural personalities because they are bringing you down is just as cruel as people telling you to repress your natural sexual orientation.
Not all gay men are fem, but quite a few are, and it is of no fault of their own. No one said you had to be attracted to them, but your hatred of them is pathological.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Coming from someone who has called another gay man a faggot, on this very board, on another Paul Varnell column, and stands by it, I can say that we need to be less thin-skinned about words. If the word “faggot” hurts you, then I invite you to reclaim that word and embrace your inner faggot. Use the word “empowering” if it helps you to find that inner strength you need to stop coming off like a hypersensitive crybaby.
Oh, shut the hell up. Some people are just naturally fem.
Prove it. I suppose that science has a concrete definition for the concept of “fem”? I’d love to see it and have you explain to me the scientific reason that would cause a person would be “naturally fem”.
Not all gay men are fem, but quite a few are, and it is of no fault of their own. No one said you had to be attracted to them, but your hatred of them is pathological.
I think you confuse “hatred” with a failure to enthusiastically support and worship the most feminine of gay men without question.
I used to be repulsed and offended by feminine gay guys. Then I met a couple who, at times, get really “queeny” and I suprised myself that I didn’t have the expected visceral reaction. What I’ve realized is that I don’t hate femininity. Rather, I hate the idea that I’m inauthentically gay if I don’t regard femininity, leftist gay activism, AIDS, and the odious, horrible Pride Parade as necessary parts of being gay. I guess I mean to say that I don’t hate femininity — I just think gay culture stinks and does a lot more harm than good to gay people.
posted by James on
Jimmy Gatt–you go, girlfriend (snap!)!!
Uh. . . .ooops.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
People…people…
Can a straight black woman get a witness?
I know how I have felt when I’ve been called whatever derogatory terms there are for a woman, or black.
I know there are white people who have spoken the word to my face, to at least describe their disdain for blacks they dissapprove of.
You know…the ‘ghetto’ kind.
As IF that’s going to make the word any more acceptable, whoever it’s addressed to or about.
I don’t like any derogatory terms for ANYONE.
I know the hurt I have felt, and I wouldn’t inflict in on anyone else.
But those whose anger makes all other words BUT the one most hateful and hurtful…to them I say, explain WHY they go there.
There is no reason no to demand an explanation.
Because I know for sure, Isaiah Washington wouldn’t take being called a nigger by a white colleague like a man.
HE would demand some kind of retribution for such an utterance.
As for WHAT KIND of gay man you all are categorizing.
I find anyone’s categorizing as bad as the categorizing of what makes a ‘normal’ black person, as opposed to what makes a black person a nigger by any other politically correct term.
The flamboyant black person has caught just as much shit as the not so, as do gay folks.
But who is really doing the defining and controlling the terms on which these words are created and utilized?
Who gets to define what is flaunting and what is flamboyant?
Exactly.
The same self satisfied cultural gurus who defined, and negatively, ME as a take no bullshit black woman.
Hey, we’re different. We’re always going to be. We’re interesting. We keep this culture from becoming crushingly boring.
Entertaining where we’re not in service to the plain whitebread cultural icons that keep trying to shape us, but we defy, however painfully.
Words do matter.
I can’t trust the person who is so willing to call me out of my name, will defend me or care about the quality of my work or talent.
I have lost in that regard. Isaiah Washington, surely cared more about his job, than the comfort of TR Knight within it too.
We have to live in this culture as minority. And we’ve already swallowed a lot of bile, in the name of preserving our paychecks and some semblance of social dignity.
I’m not, and never will be offended by gay folks, in whatever shape the characteristic.
It’s what gives our lives flavors as much as who I am, adds the spice.
At least Washington’s colleagues called him on it when he stepped on his own dick.
And TR Knight came out, as did a few other beloved actors.
Maybe these were unintended consequences, but I think welcome ones to make people like Washington finally grow an empathy bone in their back.
posted by Novaseeker on
Here we go again with the “Hey it’s okay for me to hate people” line from James. Snore.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Regan DuCasse,
Before you wrote what you wrote, I didn’t know your gender, your sexuality, or your culture. I liked it better that way because I prefer treating you as an individual rather than as some kind of representative of a social group.
In any case, were you criticizing what I wrote? I understand you feel passionate about this issue and feel it has something to do with the N-word, but I don’t get what you’re talking about. Your words sound more like a pissed-off ramble than a specific objection.
posted by Loundry on
dickless Oprahfied stumps
Classic! I’m shamelessly stealing it. Oprah deserves to become an adjective.
posted by James on
Hey, Novaseeker, wake up! We need your nobility and tolerance.
I don’t hate anyone. I view certain groups with extreme indifference. You know, I bet you do the same thing–I bet you feel that way about Christians, Muslims, undocumented workers, and any number of groups. Why is your extreme indifference to them any more noble than my extreme indifference to fems? Why is better to call someone a Christofascist or a raghead than a faggot? Why is it OK for you to decide not to associate with born-again Christians and not OK for me to decide not to associate with fems?
Here we go again with the “My hates are more noble than your hates” line from Novaseeker. Sneeze.
(I’m not sleepy.)
posted by kittynboi on
Some of the people here are reminding me more and more of Uncle Ruckus.
posted by Novaseeker on
Why do you assume I hate or have extreme indifference to Christians, when I am one myself? Or Muslims, for that matter? Or undocumented workers? I’m not sitting in an internet forum justifying my angst towards any of these people, even if I did have that angst, like you have done repeatedly regarding your own self-proclaimed angst towards fem gays.
Your song and dance is just getting old, James.
posted by Carl on
-later meet by chance and after more exchange of both insults and subtle signs of respect, go out for a drink and become friends…like men used to do it before they became dickless Oprahfied stumps.-
If that were the case, then can you please tell us why there have been over the years so many cases of men killing each other because of race, or religion, or sexual orientation, etc.? Using your logic, there would have never been any violence or crime based on bigotry because men could slug it out and have a beer.
Isaiah Washington thinks that he is the star of the show. He has an executive producer who lets him get away with anything. He has had no reason to change his behavior.
I always wonder if those who think that anyone who complains about being bullied is a sissy ever really has had to face that type of constant abuse.
posted by James on
My angst is against fems–gay and straight. Fem is not gay. Gay is not fem. Gay is men attracted to other men. Fem is acting in an effeminate way or displaying feminine characteristics.
You place yourself in a nobler-than-thou position because you are able to accept a group of people which I don’t accept–but I bet I accept groups you don’t accept. I bet you have decided that there are large groups of people which you don’t want to associate with–I don’t know what those are in your case, but I know that the gay community in general takes no interest in the plight of undocumented workers, Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, pro-lifers, etc. I would bet that there are groups on this list which you’ve decided aren’t worth your time in this short life.
I have made that decision about fems. I am tired of my experience as a gay man always being invaded by this group of people which does nothing but annoy me–and I’m sure you’d feel the same way if, all of a sudden, your world was filled with Fundamentalists. You would be upset if you had to share the deepest part of yourself with people you can’t stand and who make choices which perplex and irritate you. Fem guys, straight or gay, David Spade or Jake Shears, are really difficult and annoying–as annoying, say, as women, which is another large group to which I am not attracted. Are you? Does your defense of fems hide a secret heterosexuality? I mean, if you like fems so much, why don’t you marry one?
posted by toujoursdan on
The more powerful argument for effeminancy being innate is the fact that is found cross-culturally, in about the same proportions and exists even in cultures where it is strongly deleterious (men who exhibit it are subject to taunts and physical violence as well as less likely, even if they are heterosexual, to reproduce.) If one lives in a strongly macho culture, such as in Latin America, being effeminate puts one at great risk – yet the percentage of men who are effeminate is about the same as in more tolerant cultures, like Thailand.
I am not sure what the harm is. I know effeminate men who are thoughtful, compassionate people and are the first to help others. I wonder more about people who react strongly against them, and what their emotional/psychological issues are, than effeminant men themselves.
But I don’t believe for a moment that it is a choice, nor can it be changed to a great degree. It is part of this world, harmless and people of conscience and compassion should look past their distaste and see what kind of person is underneath.
posted by toujoursdan on
and I’m sure you’d feel the same way if, all of a sudden, your world was filled with Fundamentalists.
Effeminancy and fundamentalisms are hardly a valid comparison. Fundamentalism is freely chosen and fundamentalism seeks to convert or destroy (physically or through other means) anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist. As a gay man, I don’t care whether someone believes that God literally dictated the Bible or Qu’ran. I care about what they want to do to me and those who think differently.
Effeminancy is innate and harmless. It doesn’t seek to convert or destroy.
posted by Loundry on
The more powerful argument for effeminancy being innate is the fact that is found cross-culturally, in about the same proportions and exists even in cultures where it is strongly deleterious….
1) You are pulling statistics out of your rear-end.
2) Even if the numbers you assert were true, it does not prove that some men are innately “fem”. Why can’t men across cultures choose to be “fem”? Furthermore, there are many cultures in which gay men are not “fem” at all. Consider Afghanistan, for instance. There isn’t even a word in Urdu for a homosexual. Gay men are executed there, so do you suppose that gay men are going to draw attention to themselves by acting like a woman?
What is “fem”, anyway? Does science define it?
I am not sure what the harm is.
The harm that I object to is this: much of the animus that straight people feel toward gay people is based in the violation of gender roles. Some gay people (let’s call them “gay activists”), in response to this animus, have chosen to rub salt in the wound and delight in doing so. Then, they choose to insist that femininity is a necessary and required part of “being gay”. This harms me in two ways:
1) Straight people assume that I’m going to be “like that” when I’m not, and there are many straight people who are more comfortable with me as a non-fem gay guy. I understand that: I’m more comfortable around non-fem guys in general. So, in other words, I’m am abused by someone else’s choices, and you know as well as I do that some gay guys absolutely relish in rubbing straights’ noses violating gender roles.
2) These same gay people will then abuse and hate me for not fully and unflinchingly appreciating and loving the most feminine and outlandish gay men. One individual on this board wrote to me, “I detest your ‘I pass for straight’ attitude”. He’s the same one whom I called a faggot and I stand by how I labeled him.
But I don’t believe for a moment that [effiminancy] is a choice, nor can it be changed to a great degree.
That’s the dogma of gay culture. The facts and evidence of it are irrelevent to you. You believe it, and that’s all that matters.
Bonus question: do you think it’s fair that straight people stereotype gay men as effiminate?
posted by James on
Even if being effeminate is innate, FEM IS NOT GAY! ! !
There are many innate traits which are also NOT GAY–apparently the inability to read a straightforward, declarative sentence is immutable in some people.
My experience in my coming out process is that fem does seek to convert and destroy–there was an incredible amount of pressure for me to give up my masculine identity for a gender-bending, omnisexual identity–almost everyone I knew dressed like David Bowie.
I agree with Loundry and I think fem is a choice, and I think that what people call anti-gay is anti-fem. I look forward to responses to his post.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
I am Loundry. I forgot that I use my name on this message board.
James, tone it down a bit. I understand your anger and appreciate your support, but you’re coming off as strident and aggressive.
posted by Roy X. Penguin on
James, tone it down a bit. I understand your anger and appreciate your support, but you’re coming off as strident and aggressive.
That’s the problem. Really, although I don’t “get” fems (much like I don’t get butch lesbians), I don’t get on the internet every day to rant about my distaste for them. Furthermore, being wary of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians is justifiable, because their ideology, if put into action, would put gay people in danger. Being surrounded by a lot of flaming queens when you’re the only prep (or fill in your own blank) in the room may be annoying, it’s harmless. I’m not going to politicize their behavior, innate or not, or make my annoyance into a crusade. If they’re not my cup of tea, I simply just find a crowd that is more to my liking. Plain and simple. I think this is what you need to learn. Let it go.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James: “almost everyone I knew dressed like David Bowie.”
But which David Bowie…Ziggy Stardust? Aladdin Sane? Thomas Jerome Newton? Major Tom? Halloween Jack? The Thin White Duke? The new slick “hetero” Bowie?
James, you might want to get out of Omaha and experience a little more of what the world has to offer before you go around condemming people for behaving differently from what YOU consider acceptible. Your continued (unproductive) hate-filled rants here serve no purpose at all. Grow Up.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Really, although I don’t “get” fems (much like I don’t get butch lesbians), I don’t get on the internet every day to rant about my distaste for them.
What was true for me, and what I suspect is true for many other gay men, is that coming out was an exercise of shocking shame and disappointment, a slap in the face, once we realized what gay culture was going to be like: a life of bitchy, queeny, self-indulgence existing in blatant mockery of masculinity. I saw the feminine gay guys as the most overt representation of that which truly pissed me off: gay culture. Allow me to expand below.
James, you might want to get out of Omaha and experience a little more of what the world has to offer before you go around condemming people for behaving differently from what YOU consider acceptible. Your continued (unproductive) hate-filled rants here serve no purpose at all. Grow Up.
ColoradoPatriot, I request that you see through the anger and read James’s real complaint, because your “grow up” comments sound like you are defending the very thing which offended him in the first place. Look at his words!
My experience in my coming out process is that fem does seek to convert and destroy–there was an incredible amount of pressure for me to give up my masculine identity for a gender-bending, omnisexual identity–almost everyone I knew dressed like David Bowie.
What James despised was the incredible amount of pressure to conform to a behavior that he didn’t like. This isn’t really about James not liking femininity of feminine gay guys. This is about James being treated as “inauthentically gay” because he didn’t conform to a behavior that he didn’t appreciate. The fact that this behavior was feminine is incidental! At the same time, I’d bet that the swishy sound of some fem guy talking reminds James of the scorn he felt for his refusal to accept something that he didn’t think had anything to do with being a gay man.
James, forgive me for projecting my own experience onto you.
posted by toujoursdan on
1) You are pulling statistics out of your rear-end.
I am quoting anthropologists like Jared Diamond (who is straight) and David Greenburg (who is gay).
2) Even if the numbers you assert were true, it does not prove that some men are innately “fem”.
So first you accuse me of making up statistics and then say that they don’t matter. So which is it now?
I said that the fact that it is found in all cultures from cultures that accept it to ones that do not, suggests that it is innate.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not going to argue against strawmen.
Why can’t men across cultures choose to be “fem”?
Why would they, particualr when they become hated by both straights and mysogynous gays?
Furthermore, there are many cultures in which gay men are not “fem” at all.
True, but totally irrelevant to my argument.
Consider Afghanistan, for instance. There isn’t even a word in Urdu for a homosexual.
Still irrelevant. There is no word in English that means getting pleasure out of another persons’ misfortune – the German word “schadenfreude”. It doesn’t mean we don’t feel that from time to time.
Gay men are executed there, so do you suppose that gay men are going to draw attention to themselves by acting like a woman?
This is still totally off my point. Are you having trouble actually sticking to it? There are effeminate men in Afghanistan – whether they are gay or not is irrelevant.
What is “fem”, anyway? Does science define it?
Psychologists and anthropologists define it as a type of behaviour that contradicts gender roles that is similar to feminine (womanly) behaviour but exaggerated.
The harm that I object to is this: much of the animus that straight people feel toward gay people is based in the violation of gender roles.
That doesn’t mean that effeminate men are causing harm by actually being effeminate.
The harm is caused by the bigotry of those around it.
Some gay people (let’s call them “gay activists”), in response to this animus, have chosen to rub salt in the wound and delight in doing so. Then, they choose to insist that femininity is a necessary and required part of “being gay”.
Who does says that it is required? Name names please.
This harms me in two ways:
1) Straight people assume that I’m going to be “like that” when I’m not, and there are many straight people who are more comfortable with me as a non-fem gay guy. I understand that: I’m more comfortable around non-fem guys in general. So, in other words, I’m am abused by someone else’s choices, and you know as well as I do that some gay guys absolutely relish in rubbing straights’ noses violating gender roles.
So the problem here is with the mysogyny of some straight people, not with effeminate men. Thanks for confirming my point.
2) These same gay people will then abuse and hate me for not fully and unflinchingly appreciating and loving the most feminine and outlandish gay men. One individual on this board wrote to me, “I detest your ‘I pass for straight’ attitude”.
You are confusing “acting straight”, as if straight people act in a superior way, with masculinity, which is a natural part of who you are.
They are making the same argument I am. Be yourself – for some that is acting more masculine and for others it means acting effeminate.
He’s the same one whom I called a faggot and I stand by how I labeled him.
What an idiotic thing to say.
All you are doing is rationalizing bigotry. This is like saying Black people should stay segregated because some white people find being around them uncomfortable. That doesn’t do yourself or them any good.
That’s the dogma of gay culture.
We have a singular dogma? Is that stored along with “the gay agenda”? Will someone send me a copy?
The facts and evidence of it are irrelevent to you. You believe it, and that’s all that matters.
What dogma and by whom specifically? I cited what anthropologists and psychologists say. You haven’t presented anything that suggests it’s a choice.
Bonus question: do you think it’s fair that straight people stereotype gay men as effiminate?
Nope. But I don’t think it’s fair to demonize people (straight or gay) who are effeminate either. The problem that needs to be confronted is sexism and mysogyny and WHY people are uncomfortable around others who mean them no harm.
Even if being effeminate is innate, FEM IS NOT GAY! ! !
No one said it was. I made it clear that both straight and gay people can exhibit effeminate behaviour. One thing sexual orientation and effeminancy have in common is that they are probably innate.
There are many innate traits which are also NOT GAY–apparently the inability to read a straightforward, declarative sentence is immutable in some people.
Then maybe you should attempt to read mine instead of building strawmen.
My experience in my coming out process is that fem does seek to convert and destroy–there was an incredible amount of pressure for me to give up my masculine identity for a gender-bending, omnisexual identity–almost everyone I knew dressed like David Bowie.
Funny. I have been around a lot of effeminate men – no one has ever attempted to make me change who I am. I have been around a lot of fundamentalists and mysogynous masculine men – who do.
I agree with Loundry and I think fem is a choice, and I think that what people call anti-gay is anti-fem. I look forward to responses to his post.
Where’s the evidence that it is chosen?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “I think that what people call anti-gay is anti-fem”.
James, you’re dreaming if you think no one’s going to dislike you for being gay as long as you’re not fem. A lot of straight men are disgusted with the thought of two guys together masculine or not.
Loundry said “I’m am abused by someone else’s choices, and you know as well as I do that some gay guys absolutely relish in rubbing straights’ noses violating gender roles.”.
That’s one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever heard. No one has to give up their right to be fem just because you don’t like it. You wouldn’t put up with anyone telling you you can’t be masculine because it doesn’t please them, what makes you think you’re king sh*t who gets to dicatate to others how to live. And as to “violating gender roles” people are morally free to live whatever gender role they choose as long as they are not harming others. How incredibly hypocritical of you and James to bitch that fem gays don’t want you to be masculine and then for you to try to dictate to them that they shouldn’t be fem.
posted by toujoursdan on
How incredibly hypocritical of you and James to bitch that fem gays don’t want you to be masculine and then for you to try to dictate to them that they shouldn’t be fem.
I couldn’t agree more. It is sad that people demand tolerance and acceptance but can’t give others the same.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
JG: “I request that you see through the anger and read James’s real complaint, because your “grow up” comments sound like you are defending the very thing which offended him in the first place. Look at his words!”
I’ve been looking at his words for awhile now and haven’t seen anything new or constructive in that time. He has gone on the record stating that he “hates” non-masculine behavior. Telling someone who holds bigoted and ignorant positions to grow up is nothing more than the truth. If you have such a jaundiced view of your fellow brothers and sisters that you feel honest HATE towards them, growing up a little is the very LEAST you could do.
posted by James on
I don’t recall ever using the word “hate” about another human being. I don’t even think I said it about effeminate behavior (which is a choice, not the person). My attitude is one of extreme indifference and avoidance. I don’t hate, I don’t punish, I don’t even wish bad things to happen to fems–I simply choose not to be around them. I am annoyed because I would like to deal with the deepest part of myself, my gayness, without having to be surrounded by fems. When I first started talking about being gay, it was like a whole flock of David Bowie dressers–from Ziggy Stardust to Aladdin Sane to Halloween Jack to the Thin White Duke to Thomas Jerome Newton–suddenly surrounded me. It was like a Hitchcock movie–The Bowies. I felt smothered and couldn’t express who I really was, which was an average guy who happened to be gay. I suspect most gays have that experience.
If gays could be supported by masculine-affirming gays as a part of their coming out process, I think there’d be a lot less confusion. I’d like to see older, married gays in monogamous relationships throwing a football around with younger gays and talking about safe sex, or even abstinence until marriage. Why can’t that be the standard image of coming out, instead of a guy in a blonde wig taking a twink to his first rave while stuffing meth up his nose?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well, James, my encounters with the gay community have been nothing like the BS you spout day after day. You’re not believable. You just get a thrill out of making crap up about how bad gays are, don’t you?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And James I have seen you say you hate the gay community.
posted by Al on
“Why can’t that be the standard image of coming out, instead of a guy in a blonde wig taking a twink to his first rave while stuffing meth up his nose”?
Well James, as you said, we chose our behavior. In that sense we also chose our role models. If all you see is in the sentence I quote above, then you need to open your eyes to the diversity of gay men around you.
Not being attracted to “fems” is fine. I’m not. However that doesn’t preclude them from being my friend. In fact some of the most masculine men I know, would be considered by societal standards, to be fem. See James, I’m defining masculinity as more than outward deportment. Strength of character, emotional stability, and the gift of tolerance. Things like that. Or are those attributes unattainable for a “fem” man?
Those of us who are truly comfortable in our own masculine identified skins, really don’t give more than a passing thought to how “gay” someone appears to be.
Why the big drama over this issue?
posted by James on
I admit your superiority, and I’m sure your life experience has been deeper and richer than mine, and that you are a fount of wisdom for all who come into your radiant circle.
However, I’m going to trust my own senses and my own experiences. Mary Tyler Moore had a line where she would try asparagus every now and then to see if she still hated it. That’s what I do with the gay community–every now and then, I check in, and yepper, it’s still the same ol’ same ol’.
For instance, I’m using this board to check in with the gay community. I was sort of hoping that on a board dedicated to the conservative end of the gay spectrum, there would be less mocking disdain for faith and morals, but nope–with some exceptions, the responses suggest that the gay community is still the same group of whiny victims who think eyeliner is some sort of rebellion. If the people in the gay community at large are like the people on this board, then I don’t see a place for me at your table. Would your insults be more fun if they were face-to-face?
It’s interesting–the article which began this thread has to do with a word which demeans people who are different, and yet, when people (like me) are different from you, you have no end of words you can use.
You want me to change. Maybe if I went through three weeks of your reparative therapy I could come out “100% out ‘n proud.”
posted by Al on
“I” admit your superiority, and I’m sure your life experience has been deeper and richer than mine, and that you are a fount of wisdom for all who come into your radiant circle”.
James I’m assuming the above was directed at me, since my comment preceded your response. Given the dripping sarcasm, one of the questions you ask is rather amusing,
“Would your insults be more fun if they were face-to-face”?
I don’t see where I, or anyone else has insulted you. Though I clearly see the digs in your responses. The people you refer to on this board have asked some legitimate questions you have yet to answer, and have taken issue with your clearly hostile attitude towards men who don’t fit a pre determined mold of your choosing.
I agree with you that the “gay community” is far from perfect, and in need of some work, but one of the benefits of being part of a group through a collective trait, is the diversity of all the members. I’m glad that the gay community is not a 100% reflection of me, or you, or any other monolithic representation. We all have a place, and we all have things to contribute.
Would it not make sense to simply recognize you have no sexual attraction to less than traditionally masculine men, and then operate accordingly? You talk quite a bit about the community being intolerant of religions, other views, traditional morals etc. It seems to me you are just echoing back what you are complaining about.
A lot of us operate from a live and let live perspective. Including a general level of respect for differences. It’s a much easier and much happier road than the angry and defensive one you seem to be on. Why not give it a try?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Randi Schimnosky:
That’s one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever heard.
Grow a thicker skin. I’ve read things on this board that are much more obnoxious than that.
No one has to give up their right to be fem just because you don’t like it.
Your objection has no basis in anything I wrote. I have never asked anyone to give up any rights. I have, instead, criticized the fact that some gay men absolutely relish in rubbing straights’ noses in their violation of gender roles.
You wouldn’t put up with anyone telling you you can’t be masculine because it doesn’t please them, what makes you think you’re king sh*t who gets to dicatate to others how to live.
I am being fair. There are some gay guys who think that being feminine is awesome and that rubbing it in people’s faces rocks. They also think I’m inauthentically gay because I don’t appreciate it. Likewise, I’m happy with the way I am and I think their criticism of me blows. How that translates to me behaving like “shit king” only makes sense in a world where feminine gay men are not ever to be criticized, ever. And that seems to be what you’re standing up for.
And as to “violating gender roles” people are morally free to live whatever gender role they choose as long as they are not harming others.
Absolutely. Likewise, we’re also free to say that that kind of gay behavior sucks sucks, just as you are free to say that my kind of gay behavior sucks. No one is free from criticism, as your criticism of me clearly shows. But you need to read what I write and hone in on my specific complaint, because it seems your writing from outrage instead of reason. So let me quote for you what I wrote in this very same thread so you can be very clear as to what my objection is:
I used to be repulsed and offended by feminine gay guys. Then I met a couple who, at times, get really “queeny” and I suprised myself that I didn’t have the expected visceral reaction. What I’ve realized is that I don’t hate femininity. Rather, I hate the idea that I’m inauthentically gay if I don’t regard femininity, leftist gay activism, AIDS, and the odious, horrible Pride Parade as necessary parts of being gay. I guess I mean to say that I don’t hate femininity — I just think gay culture stinks and does a lot more harm than good to gay people.
So tell me Randi, do I hate feminine gay guys, or is it something else that I hate?
How incredibly hypocritical of you and James to bitch that fem gays don’t want you to be masculine and then for you to try to dictate to them that they shouldn’t be fem.
How very unintelligent of you to fail to read or understand the very words that I wrote. Please respond to my argument and not some hypocritical strawman that you can defeat with the raw power of your anger.
posted by James on
“I don’t see where I, or anyone else has insulted you.”
?!?!?!?!? :0
I don’t have a “hostile” attitude toward anyone. I have an attitude of “extreme indifference” towards certain people which I celebrate by avoiding those people. I welcome them all to the planet–and hope they all find a place far away from me.
The attitude you see in me is the same tolerant and diverse and welcoming attitude you see in the posts directed at me and people like me. You complain that the world calls you faggots–you are like a kid who gets yelled at by his parents and then kicks his dog. On this board, we are your dog, we are the faggots.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
toujoursdan:
Your response is petty and snide. I’ll respond to you this time in the hopes that your tone will improve.
So first you accuse me of making up statistics and then say that they don’t matter. So which is it now?
It’s the latter of the two, which is where the problem lies. Pulling statistics out of your ass (and you have yet to provide them, by the way) was an advisory. My objection stands: showing that feminine men exist in other cultures does not prove that femininity is innate.
I said that the fact that it is found in all cultures from cultures that accept it to ones that do not, suggests that it is innate.
I asked for proof, not suggestions. I take it suggestions is the best you can do?
Why would they [choose to be fem], particualr when they become hated by both straights and mysogynous gays?
They would do so for the sake of acceptance in a social group. For many people, being stigmatized by the majority is worth the price of being accepted by others. Goth kids and minority religions are two examples of this kind of common human behavior.
[Furthermore, there are many cultures in which gay men are not “fem” at all.]
True, but totally irrelevant to my argument.
It is in no way irrelevant to your argument. You said that the fact that femininity in met cut across cultures “suggested” that it was innate. If that were true, then why does this “innate” qualitity fail to exist in all cultures?
[What is “fem”, anyway? Does science define it?]
Psychologists and anthropologists define it as a type of behaviour that contradicts gender roles that is similar to feminine (womanly) behaviour but exaggerated.
And how does science define “feminine behavior”?
Who does says that [femininity] is required? Name names please.
This is common knowledge. Would it be a good idea for me to disrespect feminine gay guys and drag queens for being feminine at a gay event — say, Gay Pride?
This harms me in two ways:
So the problem here is with the mysogyny of some straight people, not with effeminate men.
Wrong. What I object to is when some gay guys rub straights’ noses in their choice to violate gender roles, and usually to do so egregiously. I’m not talking about just acting girly. I’m talking about the outrageous drag and crass, whorelike sexual offrontery that is on exultant display at the reprehensible, disgusting Gay Pride parade. *That* is what gay life is all about? There are some gay men who certainly think so, and they don’t give a shit if their public, televised behavior is the image of “gay people” that straights will assume of me. I assume you think that if straights weren’t so “misogynistic” then none of this would be a big deal.
You are confusing “acting straight”, as if straight people act in a superior way, with masculinity, which is a natural part of who you are.
I am confusing nothing. When a gay man describes himself as “straight acting”, then everyone knows that he is saying that he is masculine. It has nothing to do with any belief that straight is superior to gay.
They are making the same argument I am. Be yourself – for some that is acting more masculine and for others it means acting effeminate.
No, they are NOT making the same argument that you are! The argument they were making is that if I don’t “act gay”, then I’m disgusting, inauthentic, and detestable. A disgrace to the gay cause. That doesn’t sound like your “be yourself” argument at all!
What an idiotic thing to say. All you are doing is rationalizing bigotry. This is like saying Black people should stay segregated because some white people find being around them uncomfortable. That doesn’t do yourself or them any good.
I don’t think your simile is accurate in the slightest. Any gay man who thinks I’m inauthentically gay and detestable because I don’t accept that femininity, AIDS advocacy, and drag queens are necessary parts of being gay is a faggot, period. I intend that to be just as insulting as that word suggests because I will not take that abusive bullshit for one second. I hope the use of that word expresses the extreme displeasure I have for people who BEHAVE in that way. My use of that word has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with choices.
What dogma and by whom specifically? I cited what anthropologists and psychologists say. You haven’t presented anything that suggests it’s a choice.
In truth, you have cited nothing. You could be making it all up as far as I can tell. The reason I think it’s a choice is because masculininty and femininity are cultural constructs, and cultures are chosen and not innate. The reason I think it’s a choice is becuase I can “turn it on” right now if I *choose* to do so.
[Bonus question: do you think it’s fair that straight people stereotype gay men as effiminate?]
Nope.
Why is it unfair? Please explain!
But I don’t think it’s fair to demonize people (straight or gay) who are effeminate either.
I don’t demonize fem guys. I don’t like feminine gay guys all that much (specifically, their behavior turns me off), but I am becoming more and more accepting of it. The reason I was so hostile to it before was because of the notion that I had to accept it in order to be “truly gay”. In other words, what I really hated was pushy, dogmatic, and self-important gay guys who treated me like garbage, a “Stepford” gay (as someone on this very board has labeled me), if I didn’t appreciate their own chosen lifestyle. Any gay guy who calls me a “Stepford” gay looks like a grade-A faggot to me.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
ColoradoPatriot:
I’ve been looking at his words for awhile now and haven’t seen anything new or constructive in that time. He has gone on the record stating that he “hates” non-masculine behavior.
I tried to explain to you what I thought his complaint was. Apparently, you can’t get past the fact that he hates feminine behavior.
Telling someone who holds bigoted and ignorant positions to grow up is nothing more than the truth.
It seems like your truth-telling had the effect of making him more combative and resistant. Perhaps your words are designed to punish, not convince.
If you have such a jaundiced view of your fellow brothers and sisters that you feel honest HATE towards them, growing up a little is the very LEAST you could do.
My fellow brothers and sisters? Spare me. Just because you and I both suck dick doesn’t make us brothers. All that cloying “gay solidarity” drama can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather eat dirt than march in a Gay Pride parade, or even be within 10 miles of a Gay Pride parade.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
I agree with you that the “gay community” is far from perfect, and in need of some work, but one of the benefits of being part of a group through a collective trait, is the diversity of all the members. I’m glad that the gay community is not a 100% reflection of me, or you, or any other monolithic representation. We all have a place, and we all have things to contribute.
I don’t think all gay men agree with you. I have had gay men on this “independent” gay forum call me “Stepford” and “conservative”. One said that he hates my “I pass for straight attitude”. They don’t want me in their gay community and the feeling is mutual.
posted by Patrick (gryph) on
James says:
“My experience in my coming out process is that fem does seek to convert and destroy–there was an incredible amount of pressure for me to give up my masculine identity for a gender-bending, omnisexual identity–almost everyone I knew dressed like David Bowie.”
——————–
That doesn’t mean that you were being “pressured” to be feminine. What it means is that you came out in the late 70’s or early 80’s.
There was also just as much pressure to conform to a masculine butch stereotype, AKA the “Clone”. Blue jeans, plaid shirt, mandatory facial hair. Good grief, leather bars often had, and still have, a dress code. Dress too preppy and you get sacked by the bouncer. Its still all drag honey-pie.
__________________
James continues:
…I have, instead, criticized the fact that some gay men absolutely relish in rubbing straights’ noses in their violation of gender roles.”
———–
Violate gender roles? Good. Maybe they need to be violated. They shouldn’t be prisons. Notice how easily you can use the word “stereotype” in the place of “gender role”. And notice as well that its women themselves that are most often violating your “rules”.
I’m a rather effeminate person myself at times. I didn’t learn it, you can see it in the earliest pictures and home movies of myself as a toddler. I wasn’t watching too many Bette Davis movies back then.
I’ve run into people like you my entire life James. And every single time I’ve run into those schoolyard bullies and their catcalls and pointing fingers, I’ve found that they themselves were much less secure in their identity as a man than I ever was.
James, I’m not sure that you really are very masculine. Thats because your definition of what a man is seems to be based much more on how you act, rather than simply on who you are.
My identity as a man James, simply rests on that fundamental self-knowledge. So I know that I’m a man no matter how I act. Whether my hands flit around the room like butterflies or stay in clenched fists at my side. Whether I’m wearing jeans or a dress. Ever action I take is a supremely masculine act, because it is a man that is making them. I know that right down to the core of my soul. And I know that I don’t have to let schoolyard bullies dictate to me whether I feel like a man today or not. I”m not sure you do.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
JG: “My fellow brothers and sisters? Spare me. Just because you and I both suck dick doesn’t make us brothers. All that cloying “gay solidarity” drama can go to hell as far as I’m concerned.”
What an incompetant and immature response Jimmy. I was speaking in general terms of “brothers and sisters” in humanity and the folly of hating others based on bias and bigotry…but that is besides the point. You have shown through your childish and unreasoneable response to be just as jaundiced as poor James. You should try to grow-up a little as well, you snarling little beast…at least seek some counseling for your deeply sociopathic tendencies. And as far as you don’t want to be seen as “brothers” with other cocksuckers, I’m sorry but you are one of us and will be regardless of your delusional world-view.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
What an incompetant and immature response Jimmy. I was speaking in general terms of “brothers and sisters” in humanity and the folly of hating others based on bias and bigotry.
Thanks for clarifying, but you didn’t improve your statement. Humanity as a whole is even less deserving of being labeled as my “brothers and sisters” than other gays are. After all, humanity also includes such stellar representatives as Fred Phelps and Muqtada al Sadr. Are those people your “brothers”? If you think so, then you’ve got some chutzpah to call anyone else “deeply sociopathic”.
You have shown through your childish and unreasoneable response to be just as jaundiced as poor James.
If you disagree with my reasoning, then at least have the gumption to explain your objection. As is, all you do is call me names. To me, that is not only childish, but cowardly.
And as far as you don’t want to be seen as “brothers” with other cocksuckers, I’m sorry but you are one of us and will be regardless of your delusional world-view.
I repeat: not all gay men agree with you. I don’t conform to their idea of what a gay man is supposed to be (I’m too “Stepford” and “conservative”), so it is you who is delusional in regards to the accepting nature of the gay community.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Patrick,
That doesn’t mean that you were being “pressured” to be feminine. What it means is that you came out in the late 70’s or early 80’s.
I don’t think those two things are mutually-exclusive. Decades ago, gay men had much fewer lifestyle options available to them. Along with many thousands of gay men, I live a ostensibly “suburban housewife” lifestyle, and that was something considerably more difficult for a gay man in the 1970s to do.
(“Suburban housewife” is yet another epithet that an accepting and tolerant faggot labeled me with on this very board.)
Violate gender roles? Good. Maybe they need to be violated. They shouldn’t be prisons.
Way to go, faggot.
I know that I’m a man no matter how I act. Whether my hands flit around the room like butterflies or stay in clenched fists at my side. Whether I’m wearing jeans or a dress. Ever action I take is a supremely masculine act, because it is a man that is making them.
Clearly you have some masculine stereotypes of your own. Yours, of course, are perfectly correct. It’s everyone else who is wrong and needs to be humiliated into enlightenment.
posted by Al on
I think what James and Jimmy seem to be missing is a separation between the ideas of gender roles, gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Gender roles in most westernized cultures are nothing more than culturally constructed affectations of traditional masculine or feminine attributes. They neither make one male or female, they are simply examples of an expected form of behavior and presentation dictated by years and year of tradition. Though they are cultural constructs, saying it is a “choice” to break pre determined gender expectations is rather simplistic, and does not take into account the various influences, virtually from birth, we are exposed to. Are there some people who make a choice to “violate gender roles? Certainly. But in this discussion it seems we are talking about men with slightly or exaggerated feminine tendencies. If that is a conscious “choice”, brought on by a desire to conform to elements of the gay culture, how do you account for the 4, 9, 15 year old who clearly does not display traditionally masculine attributes?
The argument keeps being advanced that straight people will have disdain for gay men and lesbians through offense taken at stereotypical affectations, or flagrant violations of traditional gender roles. That reasoning ignores the fact that gender roles, gender deportment, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior are four distinct elements, each having different causation.
If I’m reading both of them correctly, James and Jimmy seem to seperate a gay identity with their chosen form of sexual engagement; having sex with men. That’s not a criticism, but a recognition of how a lot of men are currently defining sexual behavior, and a simultaneous rejection of what they see as rigid expectations in the “gay community”.
Many times you cite “stereotypical” behavior as somehow “bringing you down with them”. You then go on to label an entire community who don’t share your views as “faggots”. Just another form of stereotyping. In other words, applying attributes to an entire culture, not just to specific individualized examples.
Nevertheless, the salient point which needs to be remembered here is respect for difference. Caving in to what you may believe to be the source of some straight peoples disdain for homosexuality, is in effect saying they are better than you. To be accepted you must conform. For most of us, conformity is not chosen, it’s how we exist, and have existed in this culture. For those who defy traditional expectations, be it innate, chosen, or a complex combination of both, there needs to be acceptance. That’s what true liberation comes down to in the end. Selling out those who stray from the norm so you may have an easier time of it, seems like one of the most decidedly un masculine things a man can do.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
JG: “After all, humanity also includes such stellar representatives as Fred Phelps and Muqtada al Sadr. Are those people your “brothers”? If you think so, then you’ve got some chutzpah to call anyone else “deeply sociopathic”.”
I can’t seem to make any sense out of this statement. Of course Phelps and Sadr are my brothers in humanity, they are humans no matter how despicable their beliefs and actions. I grew up in Kansas and have had numerous encounters with Phelps and his brethren, several of which resulted in conversations with the police. The Westborough Baptists are horrible people but I still feel a love for them as fellow humans. Do you even know what sociopathic means? You seem to have it (and pretty much everything else) completely backwards.
posted by James on
I bet if you tried to criticize Nazis on this board, you’d get something like “Not all Nazis are alike–you can’t make generalizations about a group. The fact that some Nazis dislike Jews doesn’t mean they all do. And not all of them agree with Hitler.”
Maybe that’s true. But the effect of Nazis as a group was pretty unified and destructive. So when I talk about the gay community as a group, it’s not that I’m unaware of the fact that not everyone in that group is exactly alike–I’m pointing out that the overall effect of the gay community as a group is negative.
The kind, gentle Nazis that one assumes must have existed are still complicit in the actions of the group. Those masculine-affirming, traditional, faithful gays which one assumes exist are still part of a gay culture which is extremely toxic and fundamentalist.
Those of you who talk about the diversity of the gay community are like prisoners who notice different shades of gray in their uniforms. But to anyone outside the prison, you’re all pretty much dressed in the same gray. It’s much more fun outside the gay community, where I have a vast array of choices–including monogamy, Christianity, and sobriety. Certainly these words exist in the gay community, but it’s only on the outside that you discover what they really mean.
posted by The Gay Species on
Human pluralism means we Homo sapiens come in different shapes, sizes, variants, some feminine, some masculine, some both, some dark skinned, some light, some with slanted eyes . . . . Diversity is great!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
You might be on to something with that “gays are like nazis” meme! Keep on digging James, you might find a pony…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gays_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
…By the way, today is my 3 year anniversary with my wonderful partner! I love you Steve!!
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Al,
Gender roles in most westernized cultures are nothing more than culturally constructed affectations of traditional masculine or feminine attributes. They neither make one male or female
Of course gender roles are culturally-constructed. That blows a hole right through the heart of the “effiminancy is innate” argument.
However, I disagree with you that gender roles make one neither male nor female. Seeing a division between “masculine” and “male” is something that scientists do (as in, “the phenotype was male”). For the rest of us, those two terms are equivalent. In other words, “male” is culturally-constructed as well. What if a human has one X and one Y chromosomes but lacks a penis and testicles? It’s a good thing we have culture to tell us its gender.
Though they are cultural constructs, saying it is a “choice” to break pre determined gender expectations is rather simplistic, and does not take into account the various influences, virtually from birth, we are exposed to.
If we can choose how we behave, and conforming with culture is done through behavior, then masculinity is a choice. Taking into account various influences, virtually from birth, does not remove the ability of choice in this regard. I can choose to start acting feminine right now. I can choose not to. It’s just that simple.
Are there some people who make a choice to “violate gender roles? Certainly.
Finally, someone acknowledges that this happens! Next question: is it wrong for some people to take pleasure in causing others distress? I think it is.
Will you also agree that some faggots like to relish in violating gender roles much like a dog likes to roll in its own shit?
But in this discussion it seems we are talking about men with slightly or exaggerated feminine tendencies. If that is a conscious “choice”, brought on by a desire to conform to elements of the gay culture, how do you account for the 4, 9, 15 year old who clearly does not display traditionally masculine attributes?
A young boy will have many reasons other than gay pressure to conform to effiminancy. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a pressure within “gay culture” to accept and appreciate the violation of gender roles.
The argument keeps being advanced that straight people will have disdain for gay men and lesbians through offense taken at stereotypical affectations, or flagrant violations of traditional gender roles. That reasoning ignores the fact that gender roles, gender deportment, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior are four distinct elements, each having different causation.
When I first came out, I came out to one of my straight friends who accepted me. We both later met another guy who acted very effeminate. My friend’s comment to me was, “I don’t care that he’s gay, but why does he have to act so … faggy?” Now, tell me, do you think my friend gave a flying fuck about gender deportment, or do you think you might be deliberately confusing a very simple issue?
Let me be direct: I get the impression that you can read and understand my arguments, and I think you realize that I have a valid objection. But for you to adress that objection would be for you to make some politically incorrect admissions, so you’ll choose to obfuscate the issue with bullshit terminology like “gender deportment” in order to dodge the issue altogether.
If I’m reading both of them correctly, James and Jimmy seem to seperate a gay identity with their chosen form of sexual engagement; having sex with men. That’s not a criticism, but a recognition of how a lot of men are currently defining sexual behavior, and a simultaneous rejection of what they see as rigid expectations in the “gay community”.
To me, a gay identity isn’t just having sex with men. It’s not even just being out. To me, a gay identity is one that is both public (as in, not hidden), and public to the point where the relationship itself cannot be discredited or demeaned as less serious or meaningful than a straight relationship. To me, the ultimate expression of gay identity is for a gay couple to have children. This way, straights can’t look at the relationship and think that “it’s just a phase” and that they will one day break up and be “cured” of that “gay thing”.
Let me be very clear about my objection to you: I think “gay culture” is shitty, I don’t want to be part of it, I don’t think that I have to appreciate it in order to be “truly gay”, and I think that the gay men who think otherwise are faggots. I use that word with the express intent to slander, insult, and degrade. I’ll be happy to stop calling them faggots if they’ll stop calling me “Stepford”, “conservative”, and “suburban housewife”.
Many times you cite “stereotypical” behavior as somehow “bringing you down with them”. You then go on to label an entire community who don’t share your views as “faggots”. Just another form of stereotyping. In other words, applying attributes to an entire culture, not just to specific individualized examples.
I hope I have explained my objections to you clearly enough. I think all arguments about “stereotyping” are stupid, so I hope you’re okay with me applying the “shitty” attribute to the entire gay culture.
Nevertheless, the salient point which needs to be remembered here is respect for difference.
I refuse to respect something that harms me for the sake “respect for difference”.
Caving in to what you may believe to be the source of some straight peoples disdain for homosexuality, is in effect saying they are better than you.
Nice question-begging. Do you realize that you’ve just conflated effiminancy with homosexuality? Is that really what you wanted to do?
Selling out those who stray from the norm so you may have an easier time of it, seems like one of the most decidedly un masculine things a man can do.
I’m not selling out “those who stray from the norm”. Have I not been very clear about what I despise? I’ll write it again for you to prevent you from tarring me with your unjust accusations.
Whom I choose to sell out is any gay man who thinks I’m inauthentically gay and detestable because I don’t accept that femininity, AIDS advocacy, and drag queens are necessary parts of being gay. This isn’t about people who are different, but rather people who despise me not only because I don’t conform ideologically, but also because I don’t show enough reverence for that which harms me.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
ColoradoPatriot,
I can’t seem to make any sense out of this statement. Of course Phelps and Sadr are my brothers in humanity, they are humans no matter how despicable their beliefs and actions. I grew up in Kansas and have had numerous encounters with Phelps and his brethren, several of which resulted in conversations with the police. The Westborough Baptists are horrible people but I still feel a love for them as fellow humans. Do you even know what sociopathic means?
I understand it to mean “a willful failure to conform to norms of society, particularly when it comes to harming others”. This is why I consider it sociopathic to express love to violent garbage like Fred Phelps and Muqtada Al-Sadr. These people want to harm people. They do not deserve to live in society at all. We should be giving help and love to those who show us kindness and mercy, and to the innocent and vulnerable. It is an insult to our loved ones and toward those truly in need that you would waste your precious love and attention on those who would exploit it to your own destruction. That is sociopathic to me.
You seem to have it (and pretty much everything else) completely backwards.
And you’re wrong about everything, EVERYTHING!
See how easy it is to spit out wholesale denunciations without having to list any specific objections? Why, even a sociopath like me can do it! Why don’t you try turning on your brain next time and tell me what I’ve written that you object to instead of trotting out a cheap little insult? (Because you’re too lazy to do that.)
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
JG: “Will you also agree that some faggots like to relish in violating gender roles much like a dog likes to roll in its own shit?”
I’d be careful about calling others sociopaths when you spew this type of retarded hate-speech. Also, your comparison of Phelps to Sadr is totally off-base, get a grip. That you could call respect and love for your fellow human brothers and sisters sociopathic is very telling of your deep psychological problems, please seek help.
posted by Al on
JG SAYS “Of course gender roles are culturally-constructed. That blows a hole right through the heart of the “effiminancy is innate” argument”.
MY RESPONSE: Not necessarily. When I cite “gender roles”, I’m referring to the expectations society has around how one presents themselves. Men do this, women do that. To say that there are no innate differences in how one expresses their own gender, is short sighted and ignores the fluidity of human biology with respect to outward presentations. There has always been a range of behaviors that either naturally identify 100% with societal expectations, and those that naturally stray from that constructed norm. I don’t see a hole being blown through any argument.
JG SAYS “If we can choose how we behave, and conforming with culture is done through behavior, then masculinity is a choice. Taking into account various influences, virtually from birth, does not remove the ability of choice in this regard. I can choose to start acting feminine right now. I can choose not to. It’s just that simple”.
MY RESPONSE: Do you really think that manerisms, speech inflections, etc. are all conscious “choices” we make with every interaction? Yes, as I’ve said, some people can choose to affect a pronounced image. If I for example, want6ed to “camp it up”, I could choose to. Similar to imitating a British accent. Both of which, for me, are not natural presentations. For others they are. The majority of individuals do not consciously think about their overall degree of masculinity or femininity when expressing themselves. Saying it’s always a choice and it’s “just that simple” ignores every aspect of developmental psychology.
JG SAYS “A young boy will have many reasons other than gay pressure to conform to effiminancy. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a pressure within “gay culture” to accept and appreciate the violation of gender roles”.
MY RESPONSE: What many reasons would a four year old have for “conforming to effeminacy”? One of the hallmarks of children that age is a lack of predetermination in their responses. Is this somehow different?
JG SAYS ” When I first came out, I came out to one of my straight friends who accepted me. We both later met another guy who acted very effeminate. My friend’s comment to me was, “I don’t care that he’s gay, but why does he have to act so … faggy?” Now, tell me, do you think my friend gave a flying fuck about gender deportment, or do you think you might be deliberately confusing a very simple issue?
Let me be direct: I get the impression that you can read and understand my arguments, and I think you realize that I have a valid objection. But for you to adress that objection would be for you to make some politically incorrect admissions, so you’ll choose to obfuscate the issue with bullshit terminology like “gender deportment” in order to dodge the issue altogether.”
MY RESPONSE: Gender deportment is not bullshit terminology. It refers to how one comes across when being objectively measured by a societal standard of masculine, or feminine. Not complicated, and not bullshit. And I believe my points have been clear, as well as my ultimate leanings on this issue. To say I’m cloaking some ideas in bullshit terminology to avoid the wrath of PC rhetoric, is simply a way for you to discredit my legitimate points.
JG SAYS: To me, a gay identity isn’t just having sex with men. It’s not even just being out. To me, a gay identity is one that is both public (as in, not hidden), and public to the point where the relationship itself cannot be discredited or demeaned as less serious or meaningful than a straight relationship. To me, the ultimate expression of gay identity is for a gay couple to have children. This way, straights can’t look at the relationship and think that “it’s just a phase” and that they will one day break up and be “cured” of that “gay thing”.
MY RESPONSE: How you personally define your gay identity is irrelevant to this discussion. My point in saying it appears to be more about sex with men and less about a gay identity, was because you go out of your way to express disdain for elements of the gay community, and issues the community traditionally has attempted to advance.
JG SAYS: “I hope I have explained my objections to you clearly enough. I think all arguments about “stereotyping” are stupid, so I hope you’re okay with me applying the “shitty” attribute to the entire gay culture”.
MY RESPONSE: While your objections may have been clear, I still view them as invalid when it comes to stereotyping an entire culture. I suppose this is a moot point since you view the reality of stereotyping as “stupid”.
JG SAYS:”I refuse to respect something that harms me for the sake “respect for difference”.
MY RESPONSE: Once again, you have failed to show how, specifically, elements of the gay community have harmed you. Whining that “straights may not like me” because there happen to be drag queens associated with elements of gay culture seems to be a rather self absorbed, as well as insecure, argument.
JG SAYS: “Nice question-begging. Do you realize that you’ve just conflated effiminancy with homosexuality? Is that really what you wanted to do”?
MY RESPONSE: I’m well aware of what I said. Some straight people equate effeminacy with homosexuality. To make the leap that says we have to now rid the world of effeminacy to pacify elements of the straight community, is misguided, and ignores the rights of individuals to express themselves in any way that they choose. Those are fundamental American rights. Do you have an issue with our core freedoms?
JG SAYS “I’m not selling out “those who stray from the norm”. Have I not been very clear about what I despise? I’ll write it again for you to prevent you from tarring me with your unjust accusations”.
MY RESPONSE: Once again, when you choose to enable the discrimination of elements of the community by concerning yourself with the feelings of the exact culture which you claim oppresses you, you are in fact selling out.
Anyway, thanks for engaging me in the topic without a string of insults, as often occurs on these boards. Though I disagree fundamentally with your opinions, discussion is always better than none, or than simply back and forth flames.
Take care,
Al
posted by James on
I think that “coming out” is a scam perpetrated by the gay community for its own purposes, not for the good of gay individuals.
In the first place, coming out assumes a binary “I’m straight” vs. “I’m gay” reality. Going back to the Kinsey scale for want of something better, we know that sexual orientation exists on a continuum.
Shouting “Hey, world, I’m gay!” or whatever reinforces the idea that gay is “other” or “queer”, not just another part of the continuum we all share. Coming out thus takes you from one closet to another–the new closet is the simple, easy-to-manage image that exists in people’s perceptions. You give them a predigested version of yourself rather than the complicated truth.
Also, you become a “faggot.” You become “other.” You are separated from society as a whole–which is where the gay community wants you to be. If you are separated from society, then you have to depend entirely on the gay community for support–“Are those bad, mean, straight people abusing you? Come to papa/mama!” After cutting you off from the world, the gay community opens its arms to you.
Then, having made you dependent on them entirely, the gay community can use you in its propaganda machine, which they call “visibility.” They want you to believe that visibility will lead to greater acceptance, but they know that visibility will just create more backlash, and deepen your dependence on the gay community.
These are all the tactics of fundamentalist religion, and like fundamentalism, the gay community threatens you with hell if you criticize it or try to leave. The gay community wants to prevent you at all costs from building an identity away from the gay community, so it fights you, and calls you names, and tells you you will never survive on the outside.
I’ve decided my coming out process is not going to be based on the binary gay/straight paradigm. I’m going to assume that all men are somewhere on the Kinsey continuum. I’m not going to give away this deep part of myself in relationships where no one is asking and it’s not appropriate. And if I’m in a relationship where it is appropriate, I’m going to ask for honesty in return. Instead of the “I’m gay.” “Good for you. I’m straight.” sort of exchange I’m going to say, “I’ll explain where I’m at on the continuum if you tell me where you’re at on the continuum.”
In other words, we both have to be vulnerable. We both have to be willing to disclose who we are, not just place each other in binary separated categories. We have to realize we are both fundamentally men who exist together in a range of possibilities, not two separate categories trying to reach across a divide.
If our discussion goes like this, “In terms of that continuum, I’d say I’m about a 4.” and “I think I’m about a two.” Then we realize that, at some level, we understand each other’s feelings. The part of him that is aware of some homosexual attraction can help him accept my more prominent homosexual attraction, and because I admit my level of attraction to women, I am not wholly other, but someone who can have some understanding of his deepest feelings.
We have come out to each other. That’s what coming out should be–not a binary, “I’m over on the gay side, hello over there on the straight side” but two men who realize what they have in common and are willing to share that with each other.
posted by Loundry on
ColoradoPatriot whined:
I’d be careful about calling others sociopaths when you spew this type of retarded hate-speech.
I can’t believe you actually invoked the spectre of “hate speech”. Pathetic! My words must be too much for a fragile and frightened individual like you to handle.
Also, your comparison of Phelps to Sadr is totally off-base, get a grip.
I don’t think my comparison is off-base at all. Neither of them deserve to live in society because of their express and proven desire to harm others. They share that in common.
That you could call respect and love for your fellow human brothers and sisters sociopathic is very telling of your deep psychological problems
I have respect and love for many people who are important and special for me. Likewise, I have a very distinct lack of empahthy and care for those who wish to hurt others and destroy life. Clearly you think that mass murderers, rapists, torturers deserve love, help, and compassion. I think they deserve to die. Between you and me, we’ll let the readers decide whose version of “love for others” is superior while you donate money to Fred Phelps.
please seek help.
I hear your advice and I decline to follow it. Instead, I opt to continue writing to you since it seems to upset you. Remember how I told you that I though you were too lazy to confront my arguments? Notice all your cheap insults?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Al,
Thank you for your response. I will have to respond to you later because dissecting your overwrought and didactic response will take time and effort. You write in an academic style, and your rhetoric is as clever as it is disingenuous since it adds heat and no light to this conversation in a way that seems simultaneously high-minded and subtly insulting. Well, some of your insults were subtle. Others were overt. Know that you have my attention and will have my riposte at a later time.
Jimmy
P.S. Coming from me, “academic” is not a compliment.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
JG: “we’ll let the readers decide whose version of “love for others” is superior while you donate money to Fred Phelps.”
WTF? Please don’t tell lies on this board. I grew up around Phelps and have NEVER heard him espouse a “express and proven desire to harm others…”. I don’t usually speak on Phelps’ behalf because of his propensity to sue but this statement is complete and total BS. There is no comparison between a loon like Phelps and an honest-to-goodness evil person like Sadr. Get a grip.
“Remember how I told you that I though you were too lazy to confront my arguments?”
Which arguments? That gays are like dogs rolling in shit? That is not much of an argument, pal.
“Notice all your cheap insults?”
No, actually I don’t.
posted by Luciene on
I agree with you that we should not seek ‘linguistic cleansing’, but then I wonder why you yourself hasn’t used the word ‘nigger’ in you article.
It may be because this ‘cleansing’ you refer to might or might not happen according to the historical path we as a society take. And banning ‘nigger’ was an action we take a long time ago.
I believe the world would be better without such terms as ‘faggot’ or ‘nigger’, but I agree that the import thing here is to ban the prejudice behind them, not just the words.
posted by Luciene on
Ooops… I believe that my post contains a few typos. Here it goes again, sorry.
……………..
I agree with you that we should not seek ‘linguistic cleansing’, but then I wonder why you yourself hasn’t used the word ‘nigger’ in you article.
It may be because this ‘cleansing’ you refer to might or might not happen according to the historical path we as a society take. And banning ‘nigger’ was an action we took a long time ago.
I believe the world would be better without such terms as ‘faggot’ or ‘nigger’, but I agree that the important thing here is to ban the prejudice behind them, not just the words.
posted by James on
The “coming out” paradigm forces us to be “other” and “queer” and “faggot.” This binary “straight/gay” absolute paradigm is false and toxic. We need to re-establish that we are guys just like other guys, with a sexual orientation which falls on the same Kinsey continuum.
I am a man. I can’t come to terms with myself if I think of myself as “other” or “queer.” I am a man first, just like all other men. I damage myself if I treat myself as a separate category. The gay community damages me by forcing me to define myself as a separate category.
Men need to be honest with each other and discuss where their sexual orientation falls on the continuum. The fact that my orientation might be farther to one side than someone else should make no difference, any more than the amount of pigment in my skin has anything to do with my innate humanness.
My way of coming out, which involves mutual disclosure between men, is healthier, because no man is treated as an “other” or “queer” or “faggot” or “ni**er.” Men need to simply explore together where our attractions are on the continuum and realize that there is some part of each of us which connects with someone else.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
ColoradoPatriot:
WTF? Please don’t tell lies on this board.
It was a suggestion, not an accusation. Why wouldn’t you donate money to Fred Phelps? I thought he was your brother and that you loved him. Why don’t you prove your love by giving him money? Maybe your love is cheap and fake.
I grew up around Phelps and have NEVER heard him espouse a “express and proven desire to harm others…”. I don’t usually speak on Phelps’ behalf because of his propensity to sue but this statement is complete and total BS.
We’ll let the readers decide whether or not they agree with your “Phelps is harmless” statement. I’ve noticed the Phelps clan holding up signs reading “Fags burn in hell!” at the funerals of gays who have been beaten to death. I suppose you think this is harmless, or even loving. I’m not surprised to see you defend Phelps, considering that he is your brother and that you love him.
There is no comparison between a loon like Phelps and an honest-to-goodness evil person like Sadr. Get a grip.
You’ve already used “get a grip” before. Try something fresh and new.
Which arguments? That gays are like dogs rolling in shit? That is not much of an argument, pal.
My statement was this: “Will you also agree that some faggots like to relish in violating gender roles much like a dog likes to roll in its own shit?” Do you notice the key word SOME that you deliberately excluded?
No, actually I don’t.
The best you can do is to say that I have “everything backward”, to suggest that I’m “sociopathic”, and to tell me to “get a grip”. That’s what I’m referring to. Do you notice it now?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Al,
JG SAYS “Of course gender roles are culturally-constructed. That blows a hole right through the heart of the “effeminacy is innate” argument”.
MY RESPONSE: Not necessarily. When I cite “gender roles”, I’m referring to the expectations society has around how one presents themselves. Men do this, women do that. To say that there are no innate differences in how one expresses their own gender, is short sighted and ignores the fluidity of human biology with respect to outward presentations. There has always been a range of behaviors that either naturally identify 100% with societal expectations, and those that naturally stray from that constructed norm. I don’t see a hole being blown through any argument.
When I mentioned that you employed subtle insults, your usage here of “is short-sighted” is one of them. If it is indeed wrong, then you can make your case for why it is wrong. Instead, your usage of “short-sighted” strung along with a second piece of rhetoric is a way of gently smearing me as stupid. I ask that you cease this form of rhetoric. If I’m wrong, say so. Drop the “small minded” insults.
When I mentioned that you employed overwrought language, your usage here of “ignores the fluidity of human biology with respect to outward presentations” is an example of what I’m referring to and, thus, my requirement to dissect what you wrote. Here, your use of language attempts to subtly argue that there is a biological component to “feminine” behavior. You are assuming the point in dispute. If femininity is innate, then prove it. Otherwise, your assertions are merely that: assertions. Since you’ve already admitted that gender roles are defined by culture, you’re going to have a hard time arguing that they’re actually defined by science.
Do you really think that manerisms, speech inflections, etc. are all conscious “choices” we make with every interaction?
This is actually a very good question. To say that behavior is a matter of *conscious* choice is not true because it does not take into account the issue of training. But trained behavior is, by definition, not innate. (Nice try!)
JG SAYS “A young boy will have many reasons other than gay pressure to conform to effeminacy. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a pressure within “gay culture” to accept and appreciate the violation of gender roles”.
MY RESPONSE: What many reasons would a four year old have for “conforming to effeminacy”? One of the hallmarks of children that age is a lack of predetermination in their responses. Is this somehow different?
He might be the only boy in his home and have limited contact with males. Or perhaps his mother raises him as a girl. Or perhaps he thinks that girls toys are more fun. Are you arguing that four-year-old children *completely* lack determination in their responses, in 100% of children? Your “hallmark” is not a hard-and-fast rule.
MY RESPONSE: Gender deportment is not bullshit terminology. It refers to how one comes across when being objectively measured by a societal standard of masculine, or feminine. Not complicated, and not bullshit.
Yes, it is overcomplicated (but not complicated), and yes, it is bullshit. “Gender deportment” is merely academic-speak for gender roles, and it is well-known that academic-type people just love to make up new and exciting new bullshit terminology to make themselves sound intelligent. What is even more bullshit is your choice to insert it into a simple issue, because I believe your impetus for doing so is to obfuscate and avoid having to make a politically-incorrect admission. Remember: you advanced this terminology in response to the notion that “straight people will have disdain for gay men and lesbians through offense taken at stereotypical affectations”. Well, answer me this: do straight people have disdain for gay men and lesbians through offense taken at stereotypical affectations? (Did my friend not ask me, “I don’t care that he’s gay, but why does he have to act so … faggy?”)
JG SAYS: To me, a gay identity isn’t just having sex with men. It’s not even just being out. To me, a gay identity is one that is both public (as in, not hidden), and public to the point where the relationship itself cannot be discredited or demeaned as less serious or meaningful than a straight relationship. To me, the ultimate expression of gay identity is for a gay couple to have children. This way, straights can’t look at the relationship and think that “it’s just a phase” and that they will one day break up and be “cured” of that “gay thing”.
MY RESPONSE: How you personally define your gay identity is irrelevant to this discussion.
It was you who brought up how I view my own gay identity (“James and Jimmy seem to seperate a gay identity with their chosen form of sexual engagement; having sex with men.”), and it is entirely fair for me to clarify how I view my gay identity since you unfairly choose to employ it in your argument against me.
But outside of that, I completely beg to differ with your charge of irrelevance. The subject of gay identity is entirely the source of all my objections! I think “gay culture” sucks. Am I still gay? Below, you call me a sell-out, which is for to say that I am inauthentically gay.
My point in saying it appears to be more about sex with men and less about a gay identity, was because you go out of your way to express disdain for elements of the gay community, and issues the community traditionally has attempted to advance.
You are proving my point: you claim that I am inauthentically gay because I do not appreciate or adhere to the dictums of the “gay community”.
Do you still believe that my being gay is “more about sex with men” even after I explained to you what I believed gay identity to be? Perhaps you view my understanding of “gay identity” as invalid by definition, and thus irrelevant?
While your objections may have been clear, I still view them as invalid when it comes to stereotyping an entire culture. I suppose this is a moot point since you view the reality of stereotyping as “stupid”.
I don’t view the “reality of stereotyping” as stupid, but rather all arguments about it. And you’re correct, it’s a moot point. Fair warning: I will wholesale ignore all of your “you’re stereotyping!” arguments from here on out as they are stupid.
Once again, you have failed to show how, specifically, elements of the gay community have harmed you. Whining that “straights may not like me” because there happen to be drag queens associated with elements of gay culture seems to be a rather self absorbed, as well as insecure, argument.
When I mentioned you insulted me overtly, this is what I was referring to. You’ve called me “whining”, “self-absorbed”, and “insecure”. The argument is either valid or it’s not, and I think the reason why you refuse to see the harm is because of the way that you have framed my argument. The harm I allege comes from the fact that I choose to integrate into society as a gay man. Meaning, the society that I inhabit is comprised of straight people and gay people who accept me as a gay man (and, much more importantly, as a gay adoptive parent). The fact that they accept me has NOT been helped by rank-and-file members of the “gay community” who insist that straights are evil and backward, and that a life of hedonism and flagrant violation of gender norms should be violated and rubbed in the faces of straight people for the sake of creating a “separate-but-equal” existence for gay people. I don’t feel brotherhood with those members of the “gay community”. In fact, they’re not my community at all! The people in my community are my community, not the people who by sake of sheer luck share the same dick-sucking hobby that I do and impose upon it a fake label of “community” when it is anything but. And I make no bones about the fact that it is very important that I be accepted by the straights (and gays!) in my community, since we all share the common interest of taking care of our children. I don’t want to be seen as one of those gays who insists that meth-snorting, fisting leather fags are a “vital and vibrant” part of “my community”. In other words, the way that I frame this discussion is in terms of being seen as a capable and competent parent. The way that you frame this discussion is in terms of being accepted into the “gay community”. And that’s why you don’t accept that any harm is being done. Instead, you likely view me as weak, treasonous, and deserving of every bit of discomfort I feel since I choose to disobey the tenets of “gay culture”. In other words, you’re exactly the kind of self-righteous gay man that I want to take to task. I see you as the gay man who would happily sacrifice my child on the altar of Harry Hay.
I’m well aware of what I said. Some straight people equate effeminacy with homosexuality.
Is it unjust that some straight people equate effeminacy with homosexuality? If so, why? If not, why not?
To make the leap that says we have to now rid the world of effeminacy to pacify elements of the straight community, is misguided, and ignores the rights of individuals to express themselves in any way that they choose. Those are fundamental American rights. Do you have an issue with our core freedoms?
What a faggy straw man you’ve constructed. I have never argued that “we have to now rid the world of effeminacy to pacify elements of the straight community”.
Once again, when you choose to enable the discrimination of elements of the community by concerning yourself with the feelings of the exact culture which you claim oppresses you, you are in fact selling out.
1. I have never claimed that I live in the exact culture which oppresses me. “Oppression” (along with “exploit”) is “progressive” new-speak that I eschew.
2. I am living happily in straight culture as a gay man, far from the “gay culture” that I despise. I allege that the harm that I experience comes from the “gay culture” that I deplore, not the straight culture that I thrive in.
3. I openly discriminate against the fringe memebers of the “gay community”, especially when they insist that they are the authentic representations of gay identity and I am inauthentically gay. I share my disdain for them with my friends and family in my community.
4. For you to call me a sell-out for the sake of #2 and #3 (above) is proving my point: I don’t adhere to the norms of “gay culture” and thus you’re calling me inauthentically gay. That makes me hate “gay culture” more, not less.
Digging deep into your loquacious and pompous response gets at the core of the issue: You think that gay people have to respect and appreciate certain aspects of “gay culture” or else be labeled as “sell outs” who appease the enemy. Let me be very clear with you: you, along with giant swaths of “gay culture”, are my enemy.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
To whom it may concern,
You can’t have it both ways.
You may say I’m part of the “gay community” whether I like it or not. Fine, but then you can’t also claim that I’m a “sell-out”. The former says that you accept me, while the latter says that you reject me. You can’t have it both ways.
I do not consider myself part of the gay community, so I think it’s honest of you to admit that fact and stop pretending that your rejection is actually acceptance. Screw gay community and your separate-but-equal lifestyle!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
JG: “Why don’t you prove your love by giving him money? Maybe your love is cheap and fake.”
WTF? Isn’t this slightly off-topic (not to mention retarded)? Why does the concept of having some sort of respect/love for your fellow brothers and sisters in mankind cause so much anger in you?
“We’ll let the readers decide whether or not they agree with your “Phelps is harmless” statement.”
That is a lie. I never said Phelps was “harmless.” Please don’t lie on this board.
“I’m not surprised to see you defend Phelps, considering that he is your brother and that you love him.”
We have free speech in this country. Phelps has a right to say whatever despicable and sociopathic thing he wants, just like you.
“The best you can do is to say that I have “everything backward”, to suggest that I’m “sociopathic”, and to tell me to “get a grip”. That’s what I’m referring to. Do you notice it now?”
You consider these to be “cheap insults”? What a thin skin! Grow up.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
WTF? Isn’t this slightly off-topic (not to mention retarded)?
Our entire discussion has been off-topic, largely due to your inability to address any of my objections. I’m playing with you simply because I think it’s fun.
Why does the concept of having some sort of respect/love for your fellow brothers and sisters in mankind cause so much anger in you?
You have mischaracterized my anger. I despise the act of having respect and love for people who wish to harm others. You expressly respect and love people who wish to kill and harm other people. Those villans are the people whom you consider to be your brothers. I find that disgusting. Whores have more honor than you do.
That is a lie. I never said Phelps was “harmless.” Please don’t lie on this board.
It is an entirely fair conclusion that I have drawn from your very words and in no way dishonest. You wrote, “I grew up around Phelps and have NEVER heard him espouse a ‘express and proven desire to harm others…'”. If Phelps has never expressed or proved a desire to harm others, then he is harmless. If you disagree, then please explain yourself.
We have free speech in this country. Phelps has a right to say whatever despicable and sociopathic thing he wants, just like you.
Naturally, and, because of that same free speech, I have the right to excoriate him for it. Apparently, it pisses you off that I am attacking the brother that you love, so you’re dutifully jumping to Phelps’s defense. Furthermore, I wonder how Phelps can say “despicable” and “sociopathic” things and, at the same time NEVER express or prove a desire to harm others. Perhaps “sociopathic” is also harmless to you? That would really de-fang your pansy attempt to call me “sociopathic”.
You consider these to be “cheap insults”? What a thin skin! Grow up.
You’ve already used “grow up” as well. You’re becoming as repetitive as you are lazy. I honestly expected more from a Phelps-lover. You know, more fire, more passion. Instead, you’re trite and slothful.
Additionally, I find your arguments to be lacking in substance.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Nothing that you write here pisses me off. I can plainly tell that you are a troll and, as such, discount most everything that you type. I was mearly pointing out that trying to compare Sadr to Phelps is foolish when you went off the intellectual deep end. Sadr is in a position to actually harm people and has the capability to reach and influence hundreds of thousands of people. Phelps is a crackpot stuck in the middle of Kansas who preaches to his immediate family. You can call me names and attack my character all you want, it affects me none and reveals you to be an ill-tempered little shrew. But please stop attributing quotes to me that I never wrote. That is wrong. For someone who has been kicked out of churches due to your antisocial behavior and is an AIDS-denier I would expect you to have a slightly thicker skin.
posted by Brian Miller on
Speaking from years of experience, I have found that the men who most loudly complain and bellyache endlessly about “fems” tend to be the queeniest “bois” in the room after they’ve had a few too many beers. Ergo, they doth protesteth too much.
Far too often, they’re also among the first to complain about how cruel it is that others reject them for being Republican, or conservative, or not “ripped and toned,” or hairy, or balding, or whatever. . . and they do it without irony. For every boring judgmental gay semi-closeted guy who complains about “fems bringing us down,” there’s a boring judgmental everything-is-gay Castro clone complaining that fat hairy conservatives are bringing us down too.
Both are equally shallow and neither are particularly interesting as friends or acquaintances, I must say.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Nothing that you write here pisses me off. I can plainly tell that you are a troll and, as such, discount most everything that you type.
The feeling is mutual!
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Brian Miller,
Speaking from years of experience, I have found that the men who most loudly complain and bellyache endlessly about “fems” tend to be the queeniest “bois” in the room after they’ve had a few too many beers. Ergo, they doth protesteth too much.
I have heard that exact same attack from members on this very same message board multiple times. People have doubted my masculinity, or called me old, or fat, or balding, or a troll, or whatever. It’s a way of discounting me rather than addressing my objections.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
What objections? So far all you’ve offered is blind vitriol and half-baked rhetoric.
posted by Brian Miller on
I have heard that exact same attack from members on this very same message board multiple times.
It’s not an attack, it’s an observation based on my life experience to date. I’ve yet to meet a single gay man who obsesses about “masculinity” who himself isn’t a bit on the feminine side after a bit of intoxication or exhaustion.
People have doubted my masculinity
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but it’s not about you. It’s about an entire group of people. If you see yourself in my comments, you probably should pause and ask yourself why that is.
discounting me rather than addressing my objections
I don’t see any objections to address, to be blunt — unless you’re demanding that feminine guys “butch it up.” In which case, they’ll be doing what most of the genuinely feminine but in in butch drag “masculinists” I know are already doing. And frankly, that’s even more annoying than just being a bit camp.
Incidentally, I find this entire discussion fetishizing individuals masculinity/femininity, weight, height, race, accent, etc. to be grossly dehumanizing. I don’t accept calls demanding that others change their inherent characteristics to please someone else’s agenda. It’s not mentally healthy to do so, and it’s boorish for another person who is (or claims to be) different trying to enforce his worldview upon them.
In short, there’s little difference between someone slamming someone else for being “fat,” or “feminine,” or whatever. . . and someone demanding that a gay man “go straight” because he’s “bringing us down.” It’s silliness, and altogether too much time is wasted both by the boors making such demands and also those who choose to indulge said boorishness either through debate, or worse, compliance with those demands.
posted by Doug on
Wow.
What an amazing thread. I think it’s wonderful that the gay community (if such a thing really exists) accepts diversity in others. It’s a natural reaction to having endured prejudice from so many other ‘communities.’
So, although we don’t all feel the need to don dresses and wigs, it’s great that we accept those who do. If some gay people are effeminite, then why should we expect them to change just so other gays might feel more comfortable?
I’m not saying that you’re effeminite, James, but I’m saying that chip on your shoulder is causing you to protest an awful lot. Let it go. Live and let live. You don’t have to like other people – but you’d probably feel a lot better if you forgave all of those nasty effeminite men who must have made you feel terrible about yourself. And maybe you can forgive yourself in the process.
posted by Doug on
I once read that the origin of the word is from late 19th century slang for cigarettes. They were (are) sold in a sort of bundle (Latin for bundle of sticks is fasces; origin of fascist)and considered effeminate in an age of cigars and pipes. Cigarettes were called fags. So were cigarette smokers.
I am subject to definition by the pejorative, so I claim privilege of its use.