Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[mightyroar]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> It's an interesting one.

> You know the old 'chaos theory' thing? The one

> where the butterfly flaps its wings and something

> happens on the other side of the world, seemingly

> unrelated?

>

> Could it be possible that every time, say, a gay

> man makes a throwaway comment labelling someone or

> other as a chav, based on absolutely nothing

> whatsoever; somewhere, somebody else uses the word

> 'gay' to mean 'rubbish'?

Actaully I think it's closer to something like Will Self's 'Quantity theory of Insanity'- in which he thinks that there's a certain amount of insanity in the world, and if one person gets a bit saner somewhere, someone else will lose it just a little bit.

So There's a finite quantity of discrimination in the world, and there's always someone being discriminatory. If they stop, someone else will start. If we get the gay thing under control (which we havent and I'm basically with James on most of what he said, and I also mostly agree with Sean's last post), then everyone with longer second toes will be in the firing line.

Or, it's like wearing control underwear. You can smooth down the tummy and arse but the flesh has to get shoved somewhere.

[indiepanda]

Do I think homophobia exists - yes, and yes, I believe a large number of people face prejudice as a result of it, including violence in some cases.

Do I think that society finds homosexuality more acceptable than racism... now we're getting onto sticky ground. I am not sure if it is constructive to compare the two. I think we all think neither are acceptable any more than sexism is, perhaps we should judge relative to how it is acceptable to behave towards a straight, white, middle class male... Though I am sure someone will come up with a circumstance under which people are prejudiced against them too! (treatment of men as fools on some adverts comes to mind)

But thinking about the case in question, given the reaction on Big Brother the other year when someone was ejected for calling another girl a n****r, it does seem off that the unfunny Chris Moyles is allowed to call someone gay as a term of abuse. Mind you, I can't understand why has air time in the first place. Think I stopped listening to breakfast on radio 1 altogether after Mark and Lard stopped doing it. (nad was him being called Lard also prejudice.... where does this stop!)

Thinking about it, at work my department is very multiculteral, as well as people from all over the UK we have people from a few different countries in Africa (mainly South but not all), Argentina, China, Vietnam, French Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, eastern Europe, Turkey, Holland, Lebanon, probagly some others I've missed, everyone seems to mix happily enough.

But in a department of over 90 individuals I can't think of one who is gay, and statistically that seems very unlikely so perhaps some people do still feel a need to cover up their sexuality at work. Imagine it would be quite isolating if one did feel like that.

[SteveT]

Is there anyone on this planet who has not, or does not feel prejudiced against in some way?

[Huguenot]

I've no doubt that gay people suffer discrimination, both small and large scale, non-violent and violent.

I've also seen gay people discriminating against heteros on this forum by suggesting they'd like a gay bar to which heteros are not welcome - I think we'd agree that there's not a single hetero on this forum who would suggest that gays should be turned away from straight bars?

I'm not sure about the validity of other 'groups' that suffer. We're a bit limited in terms of sexuality but I guess that Doggers and the S&M crowd have a pretty unfortunate time of it. Max Mosley's pecadillos weren't popular. They all have to hide themselves away and getting 'outed' is a humiliation.

In order to be discriminated against as a group, you'd have to be an identifiable member of that group, and likely as not have a tribal agenda. In that sense then yes, I can think of thousands of 'groups' that suffer violent intimidation: schoolkids (for their school, for their fashion choices, for where they live, for what they study), football fans (for their teams), scientists (for their research) etc. etc.

I can also think of groups whose name has become a by-word for 'dirty', 'rubbish' or 'very bad'. This includes the French ("Oops, pardon my French", "French-letter", "French kissing"), the Germans ("This house is jerry-built"), and the usual allegations against other minorities such as Gypsies.

I'm not saying that gays aren't discriminated against, just that I'm finding it hard in a world crammed with discrimination and hatred to make them a special case.

That gay people are happy to discriminate against other groups, include the aforementioned examples of anti-hetero and anti-working class, makes me even less sympathetic.

[taper]

People get attacked and sometimes killed in the UK because they are gay. Historically, people were put into concentration camps because they were gay. And even today 16 year old Iranian boys get hung in public because they are gay. Trying to equate this level of hate with schoolground fights is, in a competitive field, quite the most asinine comment i've seen on this forum.

[cdonline]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

> That gay people are happy to discriminate against

> other groups, include the aforementioned examples

> of anti-hetero and anti-working class, makes me

> even less sympathetic.

Sorry but that is total generalisation about gay people. I am not anti-heterosexual and am proud to be working class.

I find that statement homophobic. This last page has really sunk low, the word just about pedantic sums it up. I would never argue and don't anyone would, that Gay people like many others come with prejudices. At the same time, I know plenty of Gay men and women who are deeply aware of their prejudices and go out of their way to be aware of them and not use them against others. The point is what people do with those prejudices. I've never heard of a bunch of gays attacking a heterosexual shouting the word breeder. At the same time, I don't see much evidence of gay men and women bullying, using violence or verbal abuse to heterosexuals just because they didn't like their lifestyle.

[SeanMacGabhann]

was that aimed at me taper?

I mentioned school-ground behaviour soley to point out that it acts as a breeding-ground for the attitudes which lead to many of the violent attacks perpetuated later on. Reading my posts as a whole on this thread I sort of thought I was arguing much the same as what you have just said?

[taper]

Refers to Hugeunot's post. Agree entirely with you

[SeanMacGabhann]

aha ok good

I still think the debate isn't going to go much further unfortunately. I noticed parallels in this article in today's paper about the increase in attacks on gypsy families in Europe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/16/roma.race

The line that stuck out for me was "On a wider level, many Romanies or Travellers simply don't mention their family backgrounds. On a writers' tour of Romania in 2000, one friend said to me, "I think the attitude of most people here would be, we don't understand why you talk about having Gypsy blood. If you kept quiet about it, you could pass."

In other words - 'keep quiet, never let on that you are "different", be ashamed, be fearful - because if you DO make it obvious that you are "different" you have little right to complain when people attack you.'

[James]

I shouldn't have used the word "pikey" and for that I'm sorry.

But the very fact that this has been leapt on while some posters here think it's perfectly ok to use the word "gay" to mean "sh*t" is telling, very telling indeed.

As is the fact that Huguenot compares gay people to those with sexual fetishes. A common right-wing tabloid technique and quite disappointing really.

The basic problem is that some people still seem to think that being gay is some sort of lifestyle you choose to adopt. This is such a ridiculous notion I don't know where to begin really!

Perhaps you should ask yourself why people still struggle to be straight for years (myself included) before eventually coming to terms with being gay... or as an experiment, you should try to make yourself gay for a day!

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

I think its fine to use Pikey in certain contexts, eg can I pike a smoke off you, because the word had nothing to do with gypsies until fairly recently. Calling someone a chav just because of their socio-economic status is a real no-no though.

[*Bob*]

The lesson of the day seems to be that if you're planning on getting on your high horse and charging off on one about prejudice, you'd better make sure your own armour is as shiny as you think it is first.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, that's always a good lesson *Bob* but it isn't the primary lesson on this thread. Or shouldn't be anyway... James making clumsy mistakes linguistically is not the same thing as... oh wait, maybe it is!

[Keef]

taper Wrote:

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

> People get attacked and sometimes killed in the UK

> because they are gay. Historically, people were

> put into concentration camps because they were

> gay. And even today 16 year old Iranian boys get

> hung in public because they are gay. Trying to

> equate this level of hate with schoolground fights

> is, in a competitive field, quite the most asinine

> comment i've seen on this forum.

People also get attacked and killed because they are school kids. People were also put in concentration camps because of their race, people are also executed for any number of reasons o Iran. Again, whilst we shouldn't use ve word gay to mean rubbish, I totally agree, it is not a competition, and for every example of mistreatment to gay people, there is a comparable example of other groups being treated just as badly!

[SeanMacGabhann]

School kids being killed is not the same as they are being killed BECAUSE they are school kids tho surely?

Possibly, but examples would be useful in disproving or proving James' point

Black People - couldn't get away with saying anything on the radio such as A Bad Thing being "so black"

Asian People - ditto

Pikey - I don't think so

Jew - etc etc

People DO still attack them it's true, but the societal boundaries are in place to disaprove of any discrimination or what have you. Calling someone tight-fisted a "jew" on morning radio would be a major problem. And quite rightly so IMO

James' point is that unlike other minorities, there is less of that "official" disapproval.

I think that's the point anyway

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

whilst we shouldn't use ve word gay to mean rubbish, I totally agree, it is not a competition, and for every example of mistreatment to gay people, there is a comparable example of other groups being treated just as badly!

Yeah, adulterers get a really hard time of it and you don't hear people rushing to their defense.

[Keef]

Sean I think school kids are often attacked and even killed exactly because of the group they are part of! I did however expressly say that I agree with James' original point, I think having had it written down a million times, everybody gets the bloody point and for the most part they agree. DPF, huh?

[SeanMacGabhann]

lol - ok I hear you!

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

DPF, huh?

Aren't adulterers always getting stoned to death and stuff? Seems a bit intolerant.

[cdonline]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

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

>

> Aren't adulterers always getting stoned to death

> and stuff? Seems a bit intolerant.

Perhaps they should organise a pride march. Might even attract more people than this

[Brendan]

I was thinking of organising a bored to death with the same old bollocks march but I?m too fed up to be bothered.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

I was thinking of organising a bored to death with the same old bollocks march but I?m too fed up to be bothered.

I'm sorry Brendan, I didn't realise that thread had been flagged for compulsory attendance, poor you having no alternative but to read our endless drivel.

[capt_birdseye]

Is it OK to use the word "Numpty"? It's one I'm particularly fond of, but would hate to think it was actually offensive to anyone...

[Brendan]

Indeed not, my facetiousness was completely voluntary.

EDITED for eloquence.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Anyway, we digress. I think an Adultery Pride march would be a splendid way to put an end to the blatant discrimination these people face in many countries. Where should we have the first one? Khyber or Tehran?