Field Theory: One in a billion
186 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Russell, for instance, is A Hugger, so I expect a hug on greeting. David is not, so I stand there feeling really awkward.
yeah totally, hugging's a personal preference. I'm not a hugger if I'm initiating but really who doesn't enjoy a nice hug hello?
With my gay friends we often do the French 'kiss kiss' thing
Quick story: We'd landed in Portugal and were quite jetlagged. Jose's landlord had been nice enough to let us stay with him and we were introduced to her. She was a small wrinkly old lady who spoke no English. Jose introduced us in Portuguese and then turned to me and said "say hello and you've got to kiss her". So I said "Ola", leaned in and gave her a wee peck. As I stepped back Jose had to remind me: "both cheeks!"
-
Nope. I did it by assuming that gay athletes might be put off by the outwardly homophobic sports world.
HA! Finally I can my put my finger on the issue I've had with this argument since you made it. The sports world may be outwardly homophobic, but then so is the non-sports world. So really gay people should be put off by any old endeavour (outside perhaps of stage design, home decorating and other sitcom cliches.)
Even if you took the view that some environments are more homophobic than others, then there ought to be no gay people in the army according to your logic. Which seems far fetched.
-
Russell, for instance, is A Hugger, so I expect a hug on greeting. David is not, so I stand there feeling really awkward.
Aw yeah. Once when I was visiting Christchurch, David H came to collect me from CPIT where I'd been blathering to some students. I hadn't seen David in a while, so I bowled up and gave him a hug.
"A hug!" he said. "Oh, er, well, yes ... I suppose so!"
He was quite brave about it, really.
-
Personally, I prefer a good, strong handshake. Sufficient physical contact without the dilemma of where you put your arms and face (I have done daft things like kissing shoulders!), or misreading the situation. Children are pleasantly surprised when you shake their hand as a greeting.
Incidentally, have you ever been in a position where Australians are facing the prospect of a hongi at a powhiri? Most of them look terrified! -
i still dont get this homophobia thing. like gays are something to be scared of or have an irrational fear of.
i'm more rugbymunteraphobic especially when theres a few of em and the been on the turps, even then i'm more wary than fearful.
-
Incidentally, have you ever been in a position where Australians are facing the prospect of a hongi at a powhiri? Most of them look terrified!
Oh! I forgot my favourite "awkward greeting" story: Indian co-worker went to his first hui. We went around saying hello. One very large Maori gentleman got the shock of his life when he leaned in to hongi my co-worker and got a big wet kiss on the lips.
-
aha... seems theres widespread confusion over homophobic and heterosexist
-
aha... seems theres widespread confusion over homophobic and heterosexist
I can assure that, should I use the word 'homophobic', it's not because I'm "confused".
-
it's not because I'm "confused".
not even as to whether the person you're labelling really does have an irrational fear of gays ?
you'd have to be pretty cock sure of yourself to pull that one off:)
-
Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and (irrational) fear.
The use was also adopted by Psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies.
Okay?
I do use 'heterocentric', to mean people or institutions which actually aren't consciously homophobic, but have trouble remembering that non-straight people exist.
-
I was working with a PostGrad Indian guy and the concept of personal space is quite different.
I felt like he draped himself over my shoulder and I quivered in the Angela Merkel manner. -
I do use 'heterocentric', to mean people or institutions which actually aren't consciously homophobic, but have trouble remembering that non-straight people exist
so if you're subconsciously or unconsciously homophobic. how would you know ?
-
I hadn't seen David in a while, so I bowled up and gave him a hug.
"A hug!" he said. "Oh, er, well, yes ... I suppose so!"
He was quite brave about it, really.
For some reason I find this almost unbearably sweet.
-
so if you're subconsciously or unconsciously homophobic. how would you know ?
By the reactions of others to your behaviours?
-
By the reactions of others to your behaviours?
and which others might they be ?... depends on the company you keep i suppose but even then that whole subconscious thing is a hole lot of unknown, hence the term.
-
pollywog, I'm struggling to work out what your actual point is. If it's 'you can't know about unconscious traits', then, well, duh. By definition.
I don't mean, however, that heterocentrism = 'unconscious homophobia', I mean heterocentrism =/= conscious homophobia. You don't have to be homophobic to, for instance, publish a puberty guide for teenagers which assumes that every single person reading it is straight, but if it's pointed out to you that you've done it, and you don't acknowledge it or recognise the damage that erasure does, then there might be a deeper problem than just not thinking about it.
-
now i'm confused.
You don't have to be homophobic to, for instance, publish a puberty guide for teenagers which assumes that every single person reading it is straight, but if it's pointed out to you that you've done it, and you don't acknowledge it or recognise the damage that erasure does, then there might be a deeper problem than just not thinking about it.
...and therefore you might be ?
so heterocentric institutions/people are those which are homophobic but not conscious of it until you point it out by their behaviour ?
and therefore all people/institutions which don't forthrightly acknowledge gayness are homophobic in much the same way as those which dont acknowledge the treaty are racist ?
but homophobia is a bad thing yeah ? so if it goes against your moral upbringing as a religious person you are then a bad person ?
-
pollywog, I'm struggling to work out what your actual point is.
I sorta can. "Homophobic" is loaded with quite a lot more meaning than, say, "claustrophobia" -- the latter is just a possibly irrational fear of confined spaces. The former implies actions and, at the least, a level of dickishness.
Killer fact: "homophobia" also means fear of sameness and monotony. So I could truthfully say that I'm a bit homophobic but I still love teh gayz.
-
^^yeah kinda what he said:)
its all about perception. for my taste the word gets bandied about a little too much cos it may not neccessarily be true but once you start throwing shit around some of it sticks to things it shouldnt
just saying, be mindful of using it if theres the slightest chance you might be confused about who and what you're applying it to.
-
so heterocentric institutions/people are those which are homophobic but not conscious of it until you point it out by their behaviour ?
No. Gods, am I really putting it THAT badly? Some heterocentricity is homophobic, some is not. I hesitate to mention this, but we seem to be struggling without specific examples. I had a long discussion with Julie about The Hand Mirror earlier in the year, and one of the things I pointed out, which was very well received, was the site's tendency to be heterocentric. So any discussion of sex or sexual relationships was unconsciously predicated on the basis that every relationship was straight. There was never any implication that I thought Julie or any of her writers were homophobic.
so if it goes against your moral upbringing as a religious person you are then a bad person
Religion is not a legitimate excuse for being hateful, IMO.
"Homophobic" is loaded with quite a lot more meaning
Indeed. So if I'm talking about corrective rape of lesbians, or vetoing a law that would allow gay people to claim their partners' bodies after death, I'm perfectly happy to deliberately use a word that carries that weight.
-
Everyone sees the world through the filters of their own experience and it doesn't take any malice to overlook a group that needs to be included but, if we are decent, we should acknowledge our errors when they are pointed out to us and rectify wherever possible. Being unwilling to do that does indicate active prejudice.
-
Whether purposefully or not I'm unsure, but Deborah has published today a highly pertinent installment of her Friday Feminist series.
-
Whether purposefully or not I'm unsure, but Deborah has published today a highly pertinent installment of her Friday Feminist series.
Ick.
I struggle with feminism that argues that heterosexuality is a mere social-political construct "imposed, managed, organized, propagandized, and maintained by force". It fails on the science, for one thing.
And it tends to meet up nicely with moral conservative arguments about homosexuality being a mere choice that can and should be reversed for socio-political reasons. Indeed, the likes of Julie Bindel argue furiously against any idea of an innate or genetic basis for sexual preference, because it mucks up their politics.
I've actually mostly finished a post about Bindel's woeful columns on the Guardian website -- especially the ones where she trashes transexuals (they can't be real women and they don't have human rights and they should stop whining) -- but we seem to have our quota of gender and sexuality discussions at the moment.
-
the ones where she trashes transsexuals
Oh, isn't she awful? I have skimmed some things and been horrified.
I say there's no such thing as a quota for gender and sexuality discussions (but of course, I *would* say that, wouldn't I?). Publish away!
-
I struggle with feminism that argues that heterosexuality is a mere social-political construct "imposed, managed, organized, propagandized, and maintained by force". It fails on the science, for one thing.
Still, it is radical thinkers like Rich who taught us that heterosexuality is also and not insignificantly a social-political construct. And hey, if it wasn't, how would you explain why it's so prevalent in some society and not so much in others?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.