Good ol' regular hatemongering misanthropes? What are y'all afraid of?
Baron Max said:
But that doesn't say anything at all about good ol' regular people who dislike homosexuals.
I dislike fat women .....therefore I'm afraid of them? ...LOL!!
In either case, what brings these specific groups past indifference? There are plenty of things I "don't like" in the world, and most of them don't compel me to go out of my way to have a problem with them. There is generally a stake that I perceive compelling me to notice certain things, and that stake describes the fear at the root of my attention. At that point, the question of what is relevant is a necessary consideration.
Consider Deep Thought's point, for instance. This, Max, as compared to your argument, is what a
valid consideration looks like.
• • •
Deep Thought said:
I was always led to believe that latent homosexuals were terrified of being exposed and as a consequence they bully gay people thinking that others will see this as a validation of their masculine credentials. It's simply the terror of being persecuted which drives them.
To my understanding you are correct. But what, then, about the
form of that behavior? Is the homophobe terrified that being around gay people will make him sick (e.g. HIV)? That the homosexual will attempt to disrupt his family (e.g. seduce spouse or child)? That the homosexual will cause a power disruption within the family (e.g. cause spouse or children to question authority rituals within unit)? That the homosexual will attempt to rape the homophobe?
The manifestation of fear, the specific object of loathing about the homosexual, tells us more about the homophobe than it does anything else.
• • •
Links of interest:
• • •
One thing we should remember is the topic example itself. The topic post describes and responds to a specific form of homophobia: "
One of the things that strikes me about this brand of homophobia is its self-centered origin."
Max's objection, however (
#1575761/6) immediately attempts to leap to a broader consideration. This transformation is necessary in order to justify the objection.
Nonetheless, questioning the nature of fear is, generally, a valid consideration. Blindly throwing darts at the wrong wall, however, is not the best way to explore that aspect.
Max wrote, "
But by the same token, I don't think that men and women can function properly in such close proximity without sex rearing it's ugly head".
Here, the fear motivating the segregation is one about human beings in general, the nature of sexuality, and our responses to the notion of duty. It arises from a root ignorance. The argument surrenders to human nature, presumes that our "animal" nature is simply insurmountable. And, often it seems that way. But the fact of our society in the twenty-first century ought to be ample testament to the human faculty for transcending our more primal aspects. That we do not, as a people, understand how to overcome this part of ourselves is a scary thought for some. It is easier to not think about it, hence segregation--with all of its moral implications--seems an attractive solution. At the heart of any sexual outlook is the individual. Even if one presumes that
everyone else is sexually overcharged, even if one is deluded enough to believe that they are the
only sexually-rational beast among people, the boundaries of empirical sexuality can be blinding. The cynicism that comes in presuming people incapable of performing their duties appropriately, despite any plethora of examples, is one defined within the cynic, according to the cynic's own knowledge, ignorance, and responses thereunto (for instance, fear).
The end result is that segregation seems the best solution.
Information, however, could easily alter the equation. While we are social and sexual creatures, what of the
form of our condition? Would different baseline social conditioning bring a different result? All suggestions are affirmative, but
we don't know. Inherent there is the ignorance itself, and the fear of change (e.g. transforming baseline conditioning) that is, essentially, the fear of the unknown.
Perhaps if Norsefire actually understood more about homosexuals and homosexuality, he wouldn't be afraid of gays the way he is. Perhaps if Norsefire understood more about
himself, he would be able to address more directly the relationship between "gay" and "self". The components of Norsefire's expression, gay and self, are telling.
Consider, for context, those who express their concern about gays, "for the children":
Elsewhere in her discussion of Helms's legislation, Butler delineates the same slide from homosexuality to pedophilia to sadomasochism that informs Measure 9:
"The exploitation of children" comes [immediately after sadomasochism in the text of Helms's legislation], at which point I begin to wonder: what reasons are there for grouping these three categories together? Do they lead to each other, as if the breaking of one taboo necessitates a virtual riot of perversion? Or is there, implicit in the sequencing and syntax of this legal text, a figure of the homosexual, apparently male, who practices sadomasochism and preys on young boys, or who practices sadomasochism with young boys, a homosexuality which is perhaps defined as sadomasochism and the exploitation of children? Perhaps this is an effort to define restrictively the sexual exploiter of children as the sadomasochistic male homosexual in order, quite conveniently, to locate the source of child sexual abuse outside the home, safeguarding the family as the unregulated sexual property of the father? (Butler 116)
(
Kent, see citation above; emphasis added)
Isn't that a creepy phrase? "Unregulated sexual property"? And, hey, no matter how many layers I put between myself and the root principle, the most basic reason that I find it creepy is because I can imagine
a lot. I mean, if
I had "
unregulated sexual property"? Holy f@ck. I mean, literally: the possibilities ... a
smorgasboard of perversion and indignity. So on the one hand, yeah, it's a problematic word to have in there. To the other, though, the point is that I'm not talking about any self-projection that isn't, in its broadest form, common. We all do it. The important questions are what, how and why. What do we worry about? How do we worry about it? Why do we worry about it (in that way)?
But yes, I've seen this process in motion before. And it
looks creepy even when its properly and benevolently intended. I mean, listening to a guy obsess over his daughter's sex life: the boys she will be allowed to date, the underwear she would be allowed to wear ...
Dude--you just found out she's having a girl. Your kid's age is T-minus. Spaceship daughter leaves the hangar in what, five months? And already he was delineating the boundaries of his ownership of her sexual development and behavior. I've never really figured out what the episode means to me. I think it's one of those things I'm hoping is never tested. Right. I know. Good luck with that, have fun storming the castle. So as creepy as the Kent excerpt is, it treads in valid territory.
We should not take this simplistically, though:
One proximate example of the defensive construction of the patriarchal family ... is the spate of "satanic child abuse" scandals so prevalent in the last few years. In one instance covered by the New Yorker, an abusive fundamentalist father managed to implicate the entire sheriff's department in one town near Olympia, Washington before the stories began to unravel. The point here, however, is that the allegations of satanic abuse were not a cynical ploy, but a group fantasy which all involved believed to be true. The wish to protect the family from potentially fragmenting accusations of patriarch-al abuse was so strong that the most ridiculous scenario became believable not only to the abuser in question, but to most of the community. Although no one had ever seen any evidence of Satan worship, and although police investigations repeatedly failed to reveal any, the police themselves had no difficulty believing that Satan worship was at the heart of the crisis in Olympia's families. Similarly, news accounts of OCA chapters in Oregon report that most members have never, to their knowledge, met any gays or lesbians, yet have no difficulty in attributing the "disintegration of the family" to "the homosexual agenda" ....
(ibid)
Patriarchal monopoly is a powerful prize. Its beneficiaries don't easily give up any portion of it, and many accustomed will compete for the scraps. Homosexuality is, in its most basic definition, damn near the antithesis of patriarchal monopoly. And it makes people uncomfortable in large part because people don't like the way
they relate to it. Some face this discomfort, some look for others to blame--e.g., it's the gays' fault.
Returning to Norsefire's example, the process seems a bit simpler. The most apparent sexual monopoly is the self. The fear expressed reflects particular perspectives on homosexuals and homosexuality. Is this how Norsefire thinks all gay men act? Is this how he thinks
he would act
if he was gay? If?
Ah ha!
Wait, wait ...
why "ah ha"?
Well, it seems like a good point for a dramatic turning, but there really isn't one. That "if" reflects a construction of possibility. If Norsefire was truly and entirely heterosexual, that "if" would not exist. Certainly, he tries to isolate the if by making it an issue of stealth buggery.
But that "if". Doesn't mean he would. Means something, though. If, of course, the characterization of the homosexual role in his fantasy construction is a reflection on how he thinks he would act
if he was gay.
Seriously, though: Should this barracks-rape fantasy, or any other similarly-irrational argument,
really be taken seriously? Or am I wrong to phrase the question that way? Do some people find rape fantasies logical?
Really. Seriously. Someone's argument against homosexuality is a
rape fantasy, and what the hell do we do with
that?
If this isn't about fear (e.g., rape), and this isn't about ignorance (e.g., fantasy in lieu of something rational), then what the hell is it? Do people really sit around and think, "Now, if I was in the army, I wouldn't want any nasty gay man to try to hump me in the barracks while I slept. Nosiree. Nn-nnh. That sort of homo stuff just isn't for me." You know, if
I was in the freakin' army, I'd probably say, "Did I lose a bet, or something?" And, "Hmph. Must've been high." I promise you, I would have better things to worry about than nancy boys.
• • •
Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups. For example, Dr. Karen Franklin, a forensic psychology fellow at the Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training, has found that, in some settings, offenders perceive that they have societal permission to engage in violence against homosexuals.
• • •
The most socially acceptable, and probably the most widespread, form of hate crime among teenagers and young adults are those targeting sexual minorities, says Dr. Franklin. She has identified four categories of assaulters involved in such crimes, as follows:
Ideology assailants report that their crimes stem from their negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality that they perceive other people in the community share. They see themselves as enforcing social morals.
Thrill seekers are typically adolescents who commit assaults to alleviate boredom, to have fun and excitement, and to feel strong. Peer-dynamics assailants also tend to be adolescents; they commit assaults in an effort to prove their toughness and heterosexuality to friends.
Self-defense assailants typically believe that homosexuals are sexual predators and say they were responding to aggressive sexual propositions.
(
American Psychological Association, see citation above; emphasis added)
