Challenging Casual Homophobia

michaelhudstonFri 20/08/10 08:26

Do you challenge what some would term Casual Homophobia?

There was an article in the online version of my local paper, about a man who was robbed on a pathway called "Lovers Walk". One of the people who commented on this story mentioned that someone had written in Marker Pen "But not in a Gay Way" on the paths sign, and that he found it ammusing.

I challenged him, asking if he would be as casually rasist, as he appears two be homophobic. I don't know why, but I expected him to reply "No". How stupid of me, to expect even that simple response, instead he went on about how if the sign offended me that much, I should clean it! He never did answer my question mind, despite me requesting again he does.

It makes we want to give up on society and just get on with my life and sod everyone else!

urqhart03Fri 20/08/10 08:41

I'm not sure this is particualy homphobic. Thinking about many of the more camp gay friends I have I could picture the type of writing they would produce.

Would you have been so offended if they had said the writing was in a 'butch' or 'highly masculine' style?

woody_the_writerFri 20/08/10 09:09

you could of course cross out the word "gay" and write "straight"

at no point, however, have you questioned the fact that the writing on the sign is graffiti, which is illegal, and of course that a man was robbed.

surely they are a more worrying aspect of society than someones homophobia?

deleted:djinnFri 20/08/10 09:18

do u call out anyone who uses the term 'straight-acting' to describe themselves? or other homosexulas who describe something [or someone else] as 'a lil bit gay'?

we gotta sort our own house before we start on the neighbours . . .

pexusFri 20/08/10 09:31

While the others are right to point out the crimes that are committed you also raise a valid point.

I am currently doing some work with a NHS Trust on LGBT Equality and Diversity. I've had a discussion about the use of 'casual' anti-gay language, I'd prefer to use the word 'subtle', and found that comparisons are made with the 'n' word and other racist language. To some extent this is about the use of wording that clearly grates on people who are now well aware that it should not be used. The same does not hold for anti-gay language because it is often context and the words having multiple meanings as a result.

In the example given above the word gay is used in a negative way. It is the negativity that causes the subtle distress to people. It gives a negative sense to people of who we are and how we conduct ourselves. In this case it suggests that we don't have a right to be lovers who walk down that lane. That is the message, plain and simple.

So before you all say 'lighten up' even as your fingers are flexing to type it, think about the result of you condoning the message that we don't have the right to be in love and express it. If you are not part of the solution, you too are the problem.

So yes, OP, you are right to think that it is offensive, because you have the right to see it that way and to say that that is how you find it, and I'm with you in challenging it.

woody_the_writerFri 20/08/10 09:56

people say about would they get away with racistl undertones in the same way, but they forget that racism and homophobia (in the UK anyway) are at different places.

homophobia is today wherer racism was 30 years ago. then, black people were fighting for things like racism and casual racism to be banned and for them to be accepted in society.

and it's worked - there's a whole plethora of attitudes and words that can't be used today as they are deemed as racist. even when used in jest.

the acceptance of gay people in society has not come that far yet. sure we have CPs and it is illegal now to discriminate against us in the workplace, but it is still there, as this OP has shown.

forwardtherapyFri 20/08/10 10:00

quoting > "I challenged him, asking if he would be as casually rasist, as he appears two be homophobic. I don't know why, but I expected him to reply "No". How stupid of me, to expect even that simple response, instead he went on about how if the sign offended me that much, I should clean it! He never did answer my question mind, despite me requesting again he does.
"

Predictable though isn't it? Would we really expect someone making such an online comment to say 'Gosh, that's a good point, it was a dumb thing for me to say... sorry!'

People say all sorts of things online, particularly when they can remain anonymous. And I wonder if we would approach this sort of thing differently if it was someone we were talking to in the pub? Or a neighbour or work colleague?

Don't give up on society, just give up on trying to change perceptions of people who make such comments online. There is probably more to be gained from having a conversation with people you have more of a connection with.

agingdisgracefullyFri 20/08/10 10:12

If only so-termed 'casual' homophobia was a simple thing. In fact, it is highly subjective. In my experience, what might appear at the outset to be homophobic comments depend entirely on who has made them, the purpose behind making them and the context in which they have been made. And perhaps more significantly, what might be interpreted as homophobia by one person, may be quite acceptable to another - despite both people being gay.

michaelhudstonFri 20/08/10 13:55

quoting > "People say all sorts of things online, particularly when they can remain anonymous. And I wonder if we would approach this sort of thing differently if it was someone we were talking to in the pub? Or a neighbour or work colleague?"

I'm out at work yet the casual terms are still used, and I do challenge them every time I encounter them. I have changed the attitude of at least one in the office, so I can take a little heart at that.

woody_the_writerFri 20/08/10 13:56

they have to be challenged each and every time, even - or should i say especially - if they are said by a manager.