Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: Comments Ahoy

Comments Ahoy

Since Crescat Sententia doesn't have comments, and my entry here may generate a few, I officially open up this entry for comments on my Crescat topics. Remember to play nice, folks.

Posted by Anthony on June 11, 2004 8:30 AM | Permalink

Comments

My take has always been that homophobia is most closely related to xenophobia & taken to be psychologically akin; i.e., that the dislike rises out of a fear of an unknown culture/lifestyle -- it's definitely a pop-psych take on it. And I agree that it is a.) much overused, and b.) frequently used as a trump card in heated arguments. Still, it's possible that you could have xenophobic teaching -- as, say, in Europe, where there might be teaching in which the fear of incoming Islamics is passed on as anger.... Do we lose xenophobia too? Is it in need of relegation, too, because its version of fear often scales toward violence?

Posted by: Spencer | June 11, 2004 9:30 AM

A point of clarification -- I mean that 'homophobia' is used to link fear to dislike by those in favor of gay-rights....as a means of making a stand against homosexuality seem irrational. I don't necessarily take a stand one way or the other -- but obviously claiming that one's aggression or condemnation originates in fear is very much a PR attack on the 'phobic' group. It's become a kind of cultural currency because we take it as a given that we hate most that which we don't understand...which would seem to rise out of the liberal sentiment that education is the solution to prejudice & violence.

Posted by: Spencer | June 11, 2004 9:37 AM

Back during my Queer Nation days, we tired of using the word "homophobic" as well. So we used another word: "heterosexist". One source gives a very simple definition: Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people. Another source gives a more detailed definition: term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Herek, 1990). Using the term heterosexism highlights the parallels between antigay sentiment and other forms of prejudice, such as racism, antisemitism, and sexism. Of course there may be objections to that term too. Which leads me to wonder if we will end up just not having a word to use in referring to people who are prejudiced against gays and lesbians, or against gay and lesbian equaliy, etc. Will we be able to do it in 25 words or less?

Posted by: Terrance | June 11, 2004 10:05 AM

Terrance: Of course, the question would also become whether the opposite term, "homosexist" might one day enter the vocabulary. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy then might well qualify as 'homosexist.'

Posted by: A. Rickey | June 11, 2004 10:34 AM

Anthony...You're joking, right? I mean the point of 75% of all the QE shows are to rehab some schlub so that he can 'get the girl'. If it were really homosexist, wouldn't the 'Fab Four' still be down on their subject after the makeover? After all, he's still straight. On the other hand, it seems a legitimate question as to whether a heterosexual making an aesthetic criticism of a particular mode of 'gay fashion', say, 'the Chelsea look', is committing an act of heterosexism. What weighs more heavily in the definition Terrance offers, the 'ideological system' (which implies something widely-ranging & programmatic) or the catch-all 'any...form of behavior, identity, etc...' (which implies that heterosexuals can't criticize anything that falls within the sphere of homosexual culture)? Is it possible that the former is too vague, the latter too restrictive? As to 'homosexism', there are certainly those with such a vitriolic distaste for hetero- culture that they could be termed 'homosexist'. But, in the end, they're only a small percentage in a community that makes up a small percentage of our overall society. What would be the point, other than its potential use as weak anecdotal evidence against those arguing for gay rights?

Posted by: Spencer | June 11, 2004 11:08 AM

Spencer: Well caught, that's a joke. Although that said I've never really liked the idea of Queer Eye. It does play off prejudices that straight men are inevitably in need of 'fixing' and gay men are always well-kept, a prejudice that certainly doesn't withstand the real life I've known.

Posted by: A. Rickey | June 11, 2004 11:18 AM

i thought you did a pretty good job of presenting your case. can you point out some sources of anti-gay ranting that isn't irrational and hence phobic? i agree that labeling one's opponent's arguments as necessarily delusional is somewhat dirty pool, only it seems to have good fit. it's like, not all smokers are slobs who litter, smoke on elevators and in handicapped bathrooms, and casually commit arson, but the 90% who do ruin it for the rest of them. what's the distinction between heterophobia and homosexism? i think this post is a useful contribution to the anti-pc debate, so i can respect it without agreeing with it. btw didn't realize this was your blog, have enjoyed your stuff at de novo. re queer guy - last night at the gay bar, i wasn't surprised that the guy i hit on was straight - the perfect hair, clothes, looks, voice, was a tip off. it's a look that guy guys had ten years ago and grew out of, and it's a look i've never had.

Posted by: arbitraryaardvark | June 11, 2004 12:21 PM

The US version of Queer As Folk is excellent. I've never seen the UK version, to be honest, but I can't imagine it being significantly better.

Posted by: Nick Blesch | June 11, 2004 2:20 PM

We should be pushing the more linguisticaly accurate "homopathic"/"homopathy" formulations. (And if new age medical quackery gets tarred by confusion, so much the better...)

Posted by: Jeff R. | June 11, 2004 3:22 PM

"It's also intolerant, although an intolerance for religion seems somewhat in vogue these days, so long as one isn't too naked about it." If one believes that some or all systems of religious belief are empirically unsupported, then shouldn't one be intolerant of those beliefs? I understand tolerance as primarily relating to preferences and moral beliefs: a certain amount of this tolerance is necessary for us to coexist. But why should we ever be tolerant of factual assertions that are wholly without merit? All I am suggesting here is that religious belief not be accorded an automatic respect that it may not deserve. If intolerance of religious belief bothers you, then tell me why you're right - this isn't just a matter of taste.

Posted by: Ryan | June 12, 2004 1:56 AM

"But why should we ever be tolerant of factual assertions that are wholly without merit?" "If one believes that some or all systems of religious belief are empirically unsupported, then shouldn't one be intolerant of those beliefs?" Intolerance as default mode. I bet you're a fantastic dinner companion.

Posted by: Spencer | June 12, 2004 11:52 AM

Spencer sort of hit the point on the head. "If one believes that some or ll systems of religious belief are empirically unsupported, then shouldn't one be intolerant of those beliefs" is going to apply just as much to an athiest as a fundamentalist: it represents someone of either stripe who has lost the capacity for self-doubt. Ah well. I'm never going to complain about someone making my point for me.

Posted by: A. Rickey | June 12, 2004 12:13 PM

Notice the word "may" in "accorded an automatic respect that it may not deserve". My point wasn't that religious belief is unjustified, it was that the casual, pejorative accusation of "intolerance" is misguided (as you argued about "homophobia"). Now, I know this wasn't the subject of your post, so I didn't expect you to present reasons/evidence for theism. However, you can't really complain about intolerance against religion when you're unwilling to show me why religious assertions are true or at least reasonable. You seem to be assuming that either all assertions are reasonable or that all religious assertions are reasonable; however, I'm sure you can think of a religious belief that you dismiss out of hand (Zeus and Mt. Olympus? Scientology? The belief I just made up right now that Amy Sedaris is our Lord and Creator?) on the grounds that no evidence has been presented for it. Talk of intolerance is rather like talk of liberal/conservative bias in the media - (as someone once said) it's more about working the referee than making substantive points.

Posted by: Ryan | June 12, 2004 3:48 PM

Posted by: Ryan | June 12, 2004 3:49 PM

Am I homophobic? At some point, I do remember the phrase "homophobia" to be something which does refer to being afraid of homosexuality. I, personally will admit to being a bit of the latter homophobic, sometimes I do get afraid that gay men will ask me out, (though admittedly it's a fear of not knowing what to say or how to reject the other person). Now, one could argue that that is a nascent, 'repressed' form of hatred towards homosexuals, but I support gay weddings, have had many gay friends and even lived with gay people (actually subletting a gay man's closet, literally, that is.\). Is it worth mentioning that I'm also afraid that women I consider to be ugly or extremely unpersonable will ask me out, too?

Posted by: yonemoto | June 12, 2004 11:07 PM

testcomment104

Posted by: testanchor77 | June 13, 2005 6:18 PM

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]