|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Nov 16, 2007 3:06:58 GMT -5
homosexuality is sort of the last bastion of acceptable prejudice. I'm not sure I agree with this this at all. I think homophobia is widely rejected in western society. Also, if simply going "Ewww" denotes prejudice... well, I've have gone "Ewww" if I'd seen 2 hugely fat people kissing too. I'd have gone "Ewww" if I'd seen a 16-year-old lad snogging an 80-year-old woman. I don't happen to accept that I'm a walking hate crime with a lifetime of unacceptable taught behaviours tucked under my belt. Taste and aesthetics are a personal thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 16, 2007 10:40:45 GMT -5
homosexuality is sort of the last bastion of acceptable prejudice. I'm not sure I agree with this this at all. I think homophobia is widely rejected in western society. Also, if simply going "Ewww" denotes prejudice... well, I've have gone "Ewww" if I'd seen 2 hugely fat people kissing too. I'd have gone "Ewww" if I'd seen a 16-year-old lad snogging an 80-year-old woman. I don't happen to accept that I'm a walking hate crime with a lifetime of unacceptable taught behaviours tucked under my belt. Taste and aesthetics are a personal thing. Fair enough, although I do think dwazee raises an interesting point by mentioning mixed-race couples. I think most of us would think there was something pretty offensive about an "ewwwwwwww!" reaction to a white guy kissing a black woman, for example. So what's the difference? I'm not saying there is none. In fact, my gut instinct tells me there is a difference. It's just not obvious to me how to explain what it is. Though I do think the line that it's a "natural" reaction is bogus, simply because it's entirely impossible for us to extricate what is natural from what is a product of socialization. Just because it feels like an automatic reflex doesn't mean it's natural - I have a pretty automatic aversion to the idea of eating certain foods which are routinely eaten in other cultures. Of course, I think there are personal idiosyncrasies in "taste and aesthetics" - if such things were absolutely determined by socialization processes, then they'd be completely predictable in a way they obviously aren't. But I think it's clear that our "taste and aesthetics" is manipulable and is very obviously and undeniably influenced by our social environment. As far as dwazee's comment that homophobia is the last bastion of acceptable prejudice - I think we're obviously making progress on this count, but it's equally obvious that homophobia is nowhere close to racism in terms of being beyond the social pale. Also I don't think we can make such sweeping generalizations about its status in "the West" - my guess is that the acceptability of homophobia in "the West" varies very widely from country to country and community to community. I stress this because I just moved from a place where homophobia was practically one of the cardinal sins (San Francisco) to a place where it is ABSOLUTELY acceptable (Memphis). Both in the West, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Nov 16, 2007 12:51:37 GMT -5
Also, if simply going "Ewww" denotes prejudice... well, I've have gone "Ewww" if I'd seen 2 hugely fat people kissing too. I'd have gone "Ewww" if I'd seen a 16-year-old lad snogging an 80-year-old woman. I don't happen to accept that I'm a walking hate crime with a lifetime of unacceptable taught behaviours tucked under my belt. But you wouldn't make either of those situations illegal... nor would you discourage those people from kissing in the future. And you probably wouldn't be proud of having your "ewww" reaction shown to millions and millions of viewers worldwide on national television. In fact, you probably would want to keep your reactions private, or, at the least, among friends who know you're not some sort of supremacist bigot. In essence: No harm. No foul. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 16, 2007 15:48:37 GMT -5
my guess is that the acceptability of homophobia in "the West"
varies very widely from country to country and community to community.
GAYS MUST LEAVE TODAY By Dwayne Mcleod, Staff Reporter April 26, 2007 The Jamaica Star Today has been proclaimed 'Gay Eradication Day' by residents of the McGregor Gully community in East Kingston. Residents say that they will be taking action as a two-week notice given to all gays and lesbians to flee the community has now expired. THE STAR learnt that about two weeks ago angry residents who declared that they were fed up with seeing the activities of several gay persons in their community, ordered that they leave by today or suffer the consequences. Some residents who admitted to THE STAR that they are a part of the "gay clearing out" scheme said that it is being done to protect their families and the community on a whole. "Yu nuh si seh dem waa mash up di place an gi wi bad name, me haffi protect my yute dem from dem type a influence deh," one resident said while pointing out that they will not sit back and watch while their community falls into disrepute. When THE STAR visited the area, a small group of residents pointed out an old community centre which is said to be the main 'hang out' spot for the lesbians. According to the residents the lesbians gather there almost nightly and can be seen hugging, kissing and even "touching". The residents say they are mostly worried about the lesbian group as they are most prevalent and influential. The number of persons in this group is said to be steadily increasing. In terms of the suspected gay men, the residents claim they are not as bold as the lesbians and are fewer but they too are expected to comply with the two-week notice. Read more ... www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20070426/news/news1.html
|
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Nov 16, 2007 18:43:44 GMT -5
I disagree that it is "taught behavior", Matheus. I really do believe it is completely natural. That being said, I enjoy talking to you as well and I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way. I just say what I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dwazee on Nov 16, 2007 21:54:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with this this at all. I think homophobia is widely rejected in western society.
it's so widely rejected that a coworker shouted 'f**got' during the middle of last week's football game. i know many many people who see homosexuality as an oddity or an abomination. you can say all you want that the West has condemned it. but look at the flap with isaiah washington from grey's anatomy. had it been t.r. knight saying the n-word, he'd have been roasted. but no, isiah had to assault a coworker and say it a couple of times, not to mention thoroughly embarrass his network, for him to lose his job. and then he got automatically picked up on an opposing network.
im sure those football players' reactions also stemmed from a need to prove that they were straight--that if they didnt overreact, they would be automatically labelled as gay, and that would have been terrible to them. which....would probably denote a bit of prejudice.
my prof from a few years ago is actually who coined that bastion of prejudice phrase--ironically enough, i discovered after him talking about homosexuality still okay to hate that he was actually gay but didnt tell anyone since he was also on the city council. anyone who knows him well enough knows his status, but he certainly doesnt share it. the fact that there are still people, even prominent ones, who feel like they have to hide their status probably says what they feel about other's reactions. my friend, who is gay, is dating a guy who is in the closet because he is scared of what his friends will think. and they are not in high school, but almost college grads. it's not a problem that has gone away by any stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Nov 19, 2007 14:52:04 GMT -5
Fair points all. I was forgetting how vast and complex the US is. I don't claim that England is a land free of homophobia, but I don't think we have large areas like Memphis where, since I have no reason to disbelieve Mary, homophobia is outright open and accepted. On matters of my own conscience, I was hugely moved, yes moved, by this Sigur Ros video which features two young chaps having a kiss or three, and came to despise the hate-filled face of the homophobic father. This felt more about love though (which I realise sounds trite, sorry) and was a total contrast to the Snickers thing, so for me maybe it really is all about aesthetics and context: www.youtube.com/watch?v=I30H7mhfLe8&feature=related |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Nov 19, 2007 15:05:14 GMT -5
I disagree that it is "taught behavior", Matheus. I really do believe it is completely natural. That being said, I enjoy talking to you as well and I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way. I just say what I think. Don't sweat it, Melon, we have different beliefs in some (or maybe a lot) of areas, so it's bound to happen. Do you think homosexuality is taught behavior or people are born with it? Since you think the reaction discussed earlier is not taught behavior and some people think homosexuality is taught behavior... I'd like to know what you think. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Nov 19, 2007 21:05:29 GMT -5
Let me add this: "Homophobia" is quite the term! It implies that people who have irrational dislikes for all homosexuals are, in fact, always afraid of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dwazee on Nov 19, 2007 22:00:03 GMT -5
Let me add this: "Homophobia" is quite the term! It implies that people who have irrational dislikes for all homosexuals are, in fact, always afraid of them!
well, i think on some level a lot of people who hate gay people are afraid--not necessarily self-loathers by any means, but ignorant of them as people. ive seen a lot of that here, where people are actually fearful of spending any time with a gay person, or having one as a roommate in a dorm because OMG something might happen or who do they hang out with or who they will bring home. i think it's an adequate description.
im not saying you have to loooove homosexuality. i personally would never want to have sex with a woman, and that's because im not hard-wired that way. but im not fearful of having a lesbian near me or what sort of people they might bring with them. i mean, you can be hetero and still appreciate that some people just arent genetically made to like opposite sex genders. to each their own, i think.
i think recent scientific studies pretty much determine what many already thought, which is that it is genetic. of course, now theres talk of trying to engineer it out of kids like engineering out diseases, which i find kinda sad. i thought to myself, honestly, how i would feel if my child was gay. and i believe that wouldnt affect a bit my love for the child. its a shame that any sort of perceived imperfection is to be gotten rid of; brave new world indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 19, 2007 23:21:00 GMT -5
I do not believe people are born gay, or born sadomasochistic, or born really liking feet etc. etc. I believe that something wrong of some kind happened to every homosexual, sadomasochist etc. when they were really young; often too young to remember. I believe that gays know deep down at the youngest time of their life, for at least a little while, that what they have isn't natural and needs to be treated and/or cured. This is indeed so deeply offensive on so many levels there is nothing to say but feeling very sorry and sad for people who harbor such ignorant prejudices toward homosexuals ... We've been through this before so that is all I'm gonna say or read about this thread ... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dwazee on Nov 19, 2007 23:31:31 GMT -5
you know phil, i always imagined you as a charlie brown kinda guy  i was trying to find an article on the censorship of the arts, but i can't seem to find the recent one i was looking at earlier. meh. so.....we of course know in this country that the national endowment for the arts has been severely limited, esp after the whole "piss christ" episode way back. in many european countries, the govt funds a lot of art that could be considered controversial in order to provide that dialogue and openness that comes with those sorts of pieces, liked or not. here, however, that is not the case--guliani, for instance during that whole debacle, threatened to close down what he could. SO the question is, how much does the public get a chance to fund art that can be considered controversial? or is it all just pretty pictures of puppies? keep in mind, the NEA gets very, very little from citizens here--in fact, much of our tax dollars go to projects and programs that many disagree with. so why is art that much different? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 20, 2007 0:00:57 GMT -5
you know phil, i always imagined you as a charlie brown kinda guy  Good Grief !  !
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 20, 2007 9:49:11 GMT -5
Dwazee ... Public - as in governmental - support of the Arts ...
Now that is a damn good question that every society has to deal with
from time to time, from one controversy to the next ...
I remember the Canadian National Arts Center paying a considerable amount of money
to acquire a painting from a renowned artist,
said painting was a very large white canvas with a wide stripe of red paint on one side ...
So ... Who decides who gets a grant, which piece to buy,
which exposition to subsidy ?
To you help a struggling young artist or reward a well-established one
for a lifetime of achievement ?
How can you even define what constitute good taste or "good Arts" ?
How can you define a sensibility, a fleeting understanding of the artist's representation of reality ...
Arts and artistic liberties should be protected
from both public and private (financial) powers' arbitrary
which is tied more often than not to an always-changing conception
of the public "good", moral "good" and even esthetical "good" ...
OK! That being said ... What was the question again ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 20, 2007 10:07:07 GMT -5
Arts, or culture, like it or not, is always a question of point of view.
We are free to distance ourselves from the work of any artist
who gets the chance to show his/her vision of the world.
We should let the artists free to ask questions
we, as a society, don't have the courage to ask ourselves.
Censuring Arts is never a a good sign for a society who wants to evolve ...
BTW, Arts tends to regulate itself as it will flourish or perish
depending on the impact it has on the population ...
|
|
!