Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[RosieH]

To return to the original point, James do you have any examples of how the situations do compare?

I think we can all agree that homophobia is a bad thing and that physical attacks, for whatever reason, are monstrous and insupportable. But I'd be interested to learn more about discrimination in its wider sense. I work in a very gay-friendly industry, so don't really come across homophobia in my day to day life, but wondered how far that discrimination extends in the work place for instance, or beyond.

[mightyroar]

Examples did you say?

Stonewall published a report last year into bullying and homphobia within schools- that's British schools, happening now. They found that

Homophobic bullying is almost endemic in Britain's schools. Almost two thirds (65 per cent) of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying. Seventy five per cent of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying.

They published the report on their website, you can all read the evidence and case studies here:

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/education_for_all/research/1790.asp

Some teachers were found to back up the bullies, some used God as their defence for telling the children in question about what is 'wrong' and what is 'right'

As a result Ed Balls asked them to set up guidelines helping schools to move forward. Schools are now being encouraged to have a policy on homphobic bullying.

Using 'gay' as a word for 'rubbish' and accepting it as harmless is utterly poisonous.

[James]

>>At the very least gay people have a choice about the ways in which, and the extent to which they express their sexuality in their everyday lives, and how and to whom they reveal it, and thereby expose themselves to prejudice

Ah, fantastic! So we should just shut up, stop being so annoyingly vocal about our sexuality (which, unlike religion, we can just sort of choose anyway) and keep quiet. If you don't want to be prejudiced against, just shut up and pretend to be/"choose" to be straight.

Firstly, gay people have had to hide their sexuality for years, and it has caused many years of misery. If children are not brought up knowing it's ok to be gay they will either hate themselves if they have gay feelings or bully others who express them. You might find this acceptable but I do not.

Secondly, I cannot believe that in 2008 I have to explain that you cannot choose your sexuality. When exactly did you "choose" to be straight? When did you choose to be aroused by women? Why not, as an experiment, "choose" to be aroused by men?

[RosieH]

Without a doubt.

But what is the context? I really don't mean this, before anyone jumps down my throat, to excuse anything, or as a cover for my own rampant homophobia. But for instance, within the school system, how does homophobic bullying compare to any other kind? 75% is a startling and nasty figure, but what is the proportion of school children as a whole who encounter bullying for whatever reason. Just wondering how it compares.

Clearly, I could (should?) go and read more about this.

[SeanMacGabhann]

That does sound suspiciously like an old judge telling a rape victime that if she WILL wear short dresses... etc. Which I don't believe for a second you meant...

[Jah Lush]

Yes DaveR I have read the post and stand by what I said. Thanks Sean, I was going to express something similar but you've just taken the words right out of my mouth.

[James]

That's just what I was thinking Sean!

I think lots of people assume that being gay is easier because you can just hide it where necessary. But the problem is that we become invisible, and if we become invisible it's harder to fight homophobia. People like Chis Moyles get away with using 'gay' as a derogotary term unchecked and it spreads because nobody is willing to stick their head above the pulpit. Hence the need to keep reminding people we exist with events like Pride.

The problem is that it's very hard for (some) straight people to understand what it's like to be brought up with the belief that what you are is wrong and bad and that you should somehow choose not to be like that.

Like many gay people, I went through self-denial and tried to be straight for years because society was giving me the message, loud and clear, that being gay was not normal or desirable. It upsets me that kids are still being brought up to believe this. It is terrible and wrong and causes untold misery.

[*Bob*]

Context is everything. There's no black and white here, James - even if you think there ought to be.

Lots of gay men themselves use gay/poof as a lighthearted slur - all them time. To each other. To their partners. To other people. "Stop being such a poof" etc etc

[James]

So what's your point?

Black people call each other "n*gger" so are you saying it would be ok for me, as a white person, to address a black person in this way? Or use that word to describe something rubbish?

Of course not - but this is what is happening with the word "gay"

[Jah Lush]

In the right context yes; *Bob*, just as when black people call each other niggers they have repossessed the power of the words but when there is hatred behind it and prejudice behind them then it's a different matter entirely.

[*Bob*]

It's not a point. It's an observation.

What are you saying..? That it's ok to use the word 'gay' or 'poof' as an (ironic) slur - as long as you're gay?

[Keef]

I call people c**t all the time, and I'm not a c**t :-S

This thread is annoying. DaveR has been jumped on for everything he's saying, and actually he's saying valid things. He never suggested you could chose your sexuality, and I didn't read his post as Sean and Jah did (the whole short skirt = asking for it angle).

This is a decent subject to discuss, but frankly I think it's difficult when James (and some others) tends to sceam homophobe at anyone who questions something he says (sorry James, I think you seem a nice fella, but you do like to play the victim sometimes).

I think I said this on another thread, but for my part I suspect that homophobia will always be different to racism, because sex is still somewhat tabboo. Lets be totally honest, most straight men, however accepting of gay people they may be, will cringe at the thought of kissing another man, let alone having sex with him. It's a more base feeling, and for those that aren't accepting of gay people, it can rise up as rather ugly homophobia.

Racism is different, it's based on many things, but I don't think anything so natural as sexuality!

Maybe it's all just as simple as numbers... There are lots and lots of black people, asian people, white people etc living in London (and all over the UK, but nowhere like London). When you go to school as a 4 or 5 year old, and half your class are a different colour to you, it's not going to seem weird, it'll just be normal.

For the most part, I agree with James' initial post. I don't know really, just a couple of thoughts.

[PeckhamRose]

I use the C*&t word a lot at home. And I speak quite nicely.

But as for where we are in 2008, let's look at it like this. We still have an appendix and we have not needed one for thousands of years. But our bodies have not caught up with our changed eating habits.

Somewhere, in there, is an analogy.

[SeanMacGabhann]

but then that IS why *Bob* used

"Context is everything"

as his opening sentence

[SeanMacGabhann]

easy Keef - how is DaveR being jumped on?

may be true but it's probably equally true in reverse for gay men watching straight couples kiss - but no one is going around attacking straight couples? And as long as people are attacked then it's more likely there will appear to be fewer of them, as they aren't going to tell people if it raises the risk of being attacked

I don't think the thread has been annoying at all - both pk and DaveR have expressed one side of the argument and people like James and me have expressed another. S'alright isn't it?

[Keef]

I think replies to Dave's posts have been more hostile. Anyway, you are right of course that gay people aren't going around hitting straights for kissing, but then maybe that goes back to my numbers and what is the social norm theory. For my part, James and I both agreed about a year ago that anyone kissing in public should be removed from view!

[SeanMacGabhann]

well we can ALL agree on that then ;-)

I think Dave is a big boy as well with a teeny bit of Devil's Advocate going on in his arguments

[espelli]

I think the original point was only to compare the historic development of intolerance of racism and that of homophobia. Homophobia is a more recently identified concept and it was not so long ago that casual racism was as prevalent as casual homophobia is now. I don't think it helps to compare them in terms of which is worse or more difficult to disagree with.

Casual and intentional homophobia is endemic in schools. In many inner city schools racist abuse is not common but homophobia is. Calling someone or something gay is a frequent insult. When this is challenged by staff the response is that being gay is disgusting and its not right. Some of this is fuelled by religious beliefs and some by intolerant parents. Schools are not allowed to "promote" homosexuality and are restricted to discussing it as a "lifestyle choice" during sex and relationships education, which parents can remove their children from anyway. Schools have made great headway in combating racism through publicity events but no school would be able to organise a "good to be gay" event or similar so the ways of dealing with discrimination are limited to individual instances where it is overhead by staff who are willing to intervene (and possibly get asked by the children "Is it cos you're gay miss?")

[pk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think the thread has been annoying at all

> - both pk and DaveR have expressed one side of the

> argument and people like James and me have

> expressed another. S'alright isn't it?

i thought that i'd finished contributing to this thread, having been unable to get my point across but i've been drawn back in by the above

as far as i can recall all that i've said is that in my eyes people should be allowed to hold beliefs or opinions that i don't agree with - be they racist/homophobic/whatever. i have not said that i support such views (which i don't) or that these views should not be challenged (which they should) i've just challenged the idea that people are not entitled to have different views. i've even resisted the urge to introduce intolerance and prejudice based around religion as another comparator

[citizenED]

Agree with Sean on the fact that this is a well-balanced debate. I'm enjoying the quality of the posts made especially since people have made fair-minded points, some of which have certainly got me thinking. Nice to have a prolonged discussion about such an important issue. You could argue that James has been rather clever, if not a little naughty, in linking Racism with homophobia in the original post, a point others have made. Linking them rather sets up anyone who veers on the side of saying that the former is worse than the latter to a charge of homophobia. Pretty unfair. Like asking, "which is worse, land mines or mustard gas".

We have not yet really debated the all the nuances of the terms in the OP. It may well be that casual verbal homophobia (with its attendent devastating effect) is more greatly accepted in society than the similar level of racist bullying. But Racism and Homophobia cannot be distilled into the simple phrases "g*y" or "n****r. I wonder what conclusions might be drawn if the economic status of Black people or Gay people in the UK were compared?

[david_carnell]

Good post Citizen. I wonder if such research into the economic performance of homosexuals has ever been conducted? It would be interesting but what would you do with the results? If gays were found to be under-performing in the workplace in terms of average earnings compared to their straight counterparts would this be grounds for legislation? I would think that it's already illegal to pay different wages based on sexual orientation. I would think gay people of ethnic minorities get it pretty rough (boom boom).

I would summise that there is a sliding scale of vocabulary that could be used in a derogatory way to describe those of a homosexual bent (if you pardon the deliberate pun). See what I mean?

Surely though - as has previously been suggested - context is all. Accompanied by threatening or aggressive behaviour nearly if not all synonyms for "gay" are pretty unpleasant.

Apologies for all Alan Carr jokes in this post

[Tony.London Suburbs]

david_carnell Wrote:

I would think gay people of ethnic

minorities get it pretty rough (boom boom).

Witness Stephen K.Amos in the March 2007 documentary on homophobia in the black British community and Jamaica, Batty Man, was broadcast by Channel 4.

Very poignant and disturbing scene when he "came out" during his gig in Brixton. I've never seen an audience change instantly like that before when,after initially assuming he was joking about being Gay,the audience suddenly realised that he was being perfectly serious.Eventually left to the sound of his own footsteps after an hilarious start,enjoyed by all,until the "revelation"...

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> I would think gay people of ethnic

> minorities get it pretty rough (boom boom).

>

> Witness Stephen K.Amos in the March 2007 documentary on homophobia in the black British

> community and Jamaica, Batty Man, which was broadcast by Channel 4.

> Very poignant and disturbing scene when he "came out" during his gig in Brixton. I've never seen an

> audience change instantly like that before when,after initially assuming he was joking about

> being Gay,the audience suddenly realised that he was being perfectly serious.Eventually left to the

> sound of his own footsteps after an hilarious start,enjoyed by all,until the "revelation"...

[Huguenot]

I find this whole gay oppression debate a bit of a non sequitor.

I'm thinking that comparing the gay community to the black community is outrageous hyperbole. It's like Christiano Ronaldo comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. Gay people don't live in poverty stricken ghettos on the edge of society. There are no gay apartment blocks in North Peckham. There was no gay-trade across the Atlantic where only one third of the gays survived the journey.

75% of the murders in Britain this year have been black people, and they represent only 5% of the population. Apparently despite 10% of the population being gay, over 75% of the murders were not gay people.

I'd need evidence that gay people are an oppressed faction comparatively before believing that this debate is anything more than self-indulgent. If anything gay people seem to be disproportionately wealthy and enfranchised. Where is the black Peter Mandelson?

I don't want to diminish, but 75% of gays in schools experience bullying, well so do 90% of heteros. Kids will bully and go tribal over anything. So people call gay people rude names, I get called names for being a public schoolboy in advertising.

I've no doubt that a crowd responded badly to this comic's announcement, but I'll bet he wouldn't have even got the first laughs if he was white.

I don't understand how strangers know that you're gay? If you're being oppressed for parading your sexuality, have you considered that it's not anti-gay, but anti-narcissist?

I'm sure there are gay-bashing occurences, but as the victim of a couple of assaults I can assure you that it happens to heteros as well. They're all bad. Have you been hospitalised for being gay James? I've been hospitalised for wearing a red scarf. Ridiculous isn't it?

[SeanMacGabhann]

some good points all around to be sure but whilst Huguenot is correct to highlight the differences between racial history and prejudice versus the releative comfort of gay people, it does so at the cost of understanding the extent of prejudice and violence experienced.

You could equally argue that Jewish people were doing alright compared to black people before you know who came along and started gassing them (along with.. who was it again......oh yeah, gay people)

Saying hetero's get attacked as well is disingenuous - you weren't attacked because you were straight (caveat: I don't know this to be 100% true, but I would be willing to put money on it). And was it the red scarf? or was it the glasses? ;-)

I would imagine most of us work in relatively liberal occupations (including the non liberals on here) but having worked in blue collar situations before it is pretty amazing just how widespread hompophobia is.

"Parading your sexuality" is also a pretty ungenerous phrase. As with Keef, I'm no fan of PDAs but there are plenty of straight people indulging in them and not getting attacked for their narcissm!

Back to pk's point - a slight apology. I'm not meaning to come down against free thought/speech/expression which I understand is what it sounds like. I would hate to see legislation such as the recent anti-faith act extended. And yet, if I understand James' point correctly, we as a society do not accept, even with all of our free speech, some insults because of the legitimacy it gave to the harsh-treatment doled out.

James may be "wrong" to compare the two - but are we really saying "dunno what his problem is really - gays have it alright and have nothing to complain about?" Maybe it is what people are saying but whereas when he previously said statements like "you don't know what you are talking about unless you are gay" and I dismissed him as a prissy old queen*, I think he might have more than a point

* yes, there is a subtext. Well done