BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

"I'm not homophobic but I don't like gays."

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
12:52 / 24.06.02
Reallt this has been spurred on by seeing reports that Nickolodean are going to do a program on same-sex parenting and then lots of outcries from parents who say they aren't homophobic but homosexuality isn't appropriate for kids of any age to be exposed to and they're going to boycott MTV until they beg for forgiveness.

But basically, my question is this: Given that 'homophobia' already has a meaning different from the words it is composed of, can one honestly say about not wanting to expose their children to different family models such as same-sex whilst claiming not to be homophobic without being contradictory? And can this be broadened away from same-sex parenting, to any aspect of queer life?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
13:38 / 24.06.02
this seems to come down to the absurd (to me) idea that only adults can be homosexual, that we are all straight until (presumably) 16 when some of us leap in queerness. not 'exposing' children to the fact that some people have same sex relationships of course perpetuates the absolute misery and isolation that many gay youngsters go through.

it's ignorance on the part of the parents, which doesn't make it excusable. perhaps some are just desperate to make sure their kids are straight and think avoiding the issue at all costs will make this happen. add to this the idea that queerness is simply and only about having sex, and ignorance reigns supreme again.

is it homophobia to intentionally shut your children's eyes to something they might be? yes, probably.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:17 / 24.06.02
That pretty much says it all for me, and without all the flapping of hands and pointing I was going to do.
 
 
Fist of Fun
14:22 / 24.06.02
'Homophobia' means, to me, either or both of dislike of or fear of homosexuality/homosexuals.

To say that homosexuality is not 'appropriate' for children requires some sort of reason, and the only ones I can think of are:
(i) They might be 'made' homosexual, or induced to 'experiment' with homosexuality;
(ii) They might be harmed by exposure to homosexuality, whether or not they are homosexual (inherently or potentially);
(iii) Possible variations on the above.

Any of the above requires an assumption that being homosexual, or experiencing homosexuality (experimenting, whatever) is unpleasant or actively bad. That falls pretty fair and square within my definition of homophobia so, yes, it's contradictory / hypocritical.

So why do these people make these statements? Some might knowingly dislike or fear homosexuality, which means they're just either lying or very confused. But I imagine quite a few today don't dislike homosexuality, per se, and don't automatically (or at least consciously) fear homosexuality. Assuming that it isn't some sort of sub-conscious fear thing rearing its Freudian head, I guess it all comes out of those bizarre ideas that many people have which are:
"It's alright if it's somebody I don't care about, but it's not alright if it's somebody I do care about"
and, (if we are being charitable here)
"Something can be good for them, but not good for us".
Weird ideas, both of them really. I suspect I subscribe to them regularly without noticing.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:36 / 24.06.02
regardless of your personal feelings, keeping your children ignorant of anything going on in the world - particularly things they will almost certainly be exposed to - is pure stupidity. while you dont need to go into any details that they arent ready for (determined mostly by their age group and relative maturity and knowledge). keeping things secret only serves to cultivate more ignorance and all its nasty byproducts
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:40 / 24.06.02
I've met those who use the word "homophobia" to mean an active interest in persecution of homosexuals. The idea being that one is not homophobic in the sense of having no interest in lynching gays and making homosexual sex illegal.

I may have it wrong but this is what I understand when people say, "I am not homophobic, but homosexuality is wrong and we should do everything in our power to sway people from that path." This kind of sentiment is usually expressed with a traditional religious backdrop and its proponents, in my experience, can think of themselves as quite progressive.

It is interesting to see how language gets used so differently depending on one's moral perspective.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:42 / 24.06.02
remember, a lot of parents are terrified to talk to their kids about anything serious, and sex/sexuality is very high (if not the very highest) on that list of scary topics. kids hear words they dont understand and they want answers - some are hard to give without such long, sober talks. even with practice its a difficult, complex subject (most grownups can barely deal with sex and related issues)
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:52 / 24.06.02
sorry, keep thinking of things to add

I often hear things like youve said - "Im not racist, but..." or "I dont care what they do, but....". theres always a "they" and a "type" to talk about. which is, in my opinion, most likely bigoted nastiness

however, I think this "our kids arent ready!" (while very certainly at times blatant homophobia) is often more of an ignorant paranoia - some parents never quite think their kids are ready to be exposed to anything real or harsh (and remember, a lot of people think of sex as dirty, certainly not something to teach your pure innocent kids about). and some will always hate the way someone else will go about it ("I can do it better")
 
 
Loomis
15:25 / 24.06.02
But Kittie isn't that ignorance precisely the problem? ie the belief that being gay is about the sexual act? The same parents who want to protect their kids from discussions of hetero sex would have no problem with a program about hetero couples parenting. A program featuring gay couples parenting likewise is not about sex but about relationships.

Sorry can't stay to discuss. Have to run.
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:07 / 24.06.02
I agree with you. however, theres no way around explaining what words mean...

for example, if guy+guy is essentially the same as guy+girl, then why are there different terms to describe them? they love one another the same, right? so why dont couple A have the same rights as couple B? why are people mad about couple A?

again, I think this conversation needs to take place. and avoiding the potential sexual aspect completely serves to place shame/embarrassment on the subject.
 
 
Ganesh
17:34 / 24.06.02
Surely that can all be explained to a small child without the need to specify what guy+guy do in the bedroom (particularly when you don't actually know what they get up to sexually)? Why should sexual mechanics be relevant to a discussion of parenting?
 
 
w1rebaby
19:04 / 24.06.02
yes, I agree... I think part of the problem comes from the automatic association by some people of gay people with sex. To them you can't have a programme mentioning gay people without it being about sex, because whenever they think about it, they can't help thinking about the dirty, unnatural things that they do.

So in a way you have someone who probably wants to "protect" their children from sexualised discussion rather than the idea of homosexuality... but to them, any mention of same-sex relationships is automatically dirty. Their motives may not be directly homophobic, but their attitude is.
 
 
bitchiekittie
19:19 / 24.06.02
Im sorry, but I cant understand how you can explain to someone with absolutely no idea what "sexuality" is without any reference to sex or some sort of similar physicality. and I certainly cant understand detailing why there are terms which separate groups without referencing sexuality

again, I stated that there need not be graphic details - only that when someone says "homosexual" to differentiate one couple from another, there will be questions that are not as easy as a casual response. with small children, one question inevitably leads to many, and you cant draw a line and stop at a point where you are personally comfortable (not without drawing an impression that you may not want to give).

also take into account that children are much more observant than adults often give them credit for - they notice things that we, as adults, either take for granted or think are so subtle as to go past young and inexperienced eyes and ears.
 
 
bitchiekittie
19:30 / 24.06.02
and Im not condemning this idea (actually, Id be glad to see it)- only trying to explain why someone might worry about it. Im also not saying that such worry is valid - I think exposing kids to situations they may not normally encounter will help balance them, prepared them for real life. especially those kids whos parents dont bother explaining things to them. I just know how scared parents can be (my coworker still has not had any semblance of a sex talk with her 11 1/2 year old child, while my 7 year old not only has had the long version of "The Talk", but also has been aware of sexual and relationship situations for years) to discuss anything even vaguely sexual
 
 
w1rebaby
19:55 / 24.06.02
I think that people who object to any mention of gay relationships are not the sort of people who will be giving "the talk" to their kids, even in a straight context. They think that they can present straight relationships as being "pure" and asexual, but they see gay relationships only in terms of the differences, i.e. sex, can't talk about them asexually and thus don't want any mention of them at all.

(Meanwhile, their kids are almost certainly reading porn and fucking in the back of cars, because they want to know what it's all about...)
 
 
Ganesh
21:17 / 24.06.02
ZoCher has two young nieces, both of whom have known me for the larger part of their lives. They both learned that "your uncle's got Uncle Stuart instead of an auntie" and have always accepted the situation as little out of the ordinary. I don't think it's ever occurred to them to wonder what we do or don't do in bed (and I'm not sure their parents would be able to enlighten them even if they did!) although the older of the two has just started getting Sex Education at school...

They'll probably learn about all sexual activity at the same time ie. years after they've been aware that we live together, we share the same bed, we love each other just like Mummy and Daddy love each other. I don't really see why discussion of gay parenting can't also be approached in this way.
 
 
bitchiekittie
15:13 / 25.06.02
Im sorry, I think Ive done a really crappy job of explaining myself in trying to answer the question, "is it inherently homophobic to not want nickelodeon to air a show about same sex couples"

my personal stance on the matter is - yes, do it, now. and theres a whole slew of other things Id like to see, and nearly as many as Id like to see disappear. but thats not what I was trying to answer

the fact is, none of us know what sort of scenarios they will portray or what terminology they will use. I havent heard of these plans, but based on this: "a program on same-sex parenting", Id have to assume it will profile same sex couples more or less exclusively (rather than a show about families in general and how they vary). which is, in my opinion, a bit sketchy. and will most likely include terms and words which differentiate homosexual couples from hetero. kids pick up these unfamiliar terms, and want to know their meanings.

its quite difficult to explain complex ideas like "sexuality" without delving into sex. not graphic details about positions and the mechanics of such, only sex in general. which many, many parents are terrified of. the mere possibility of such discussions is often met with red faces and sputters from even the more articulate souls.

add to that the difficulty of societies issues - whether said parent possesses these issues or not, its still a difficult task to explain why people can be so hateful to someone because of who they love

not that I personally dont think these conversations need to happen - and happen early. my daughter knows things that some kids twice her age dont have a clue about. I just know how fear (or embarrassment, or discomfort) can override good sense and good intentions
 
 
Cloudhands
16:57 / 25.06.02
If the people objecting to telly programme weren't homophobic then what reason could they possibly have to object to it? I'd always assumed that the definition of homophobic as someone who perpetrates violence against gays was am vain attempt by homophobics (those who fear/hate homosexuals) to justify their dislike of homosexuals while appearing slightly more politically correct. But to me the primary definition of homophobic is hatred/fear of gays, they hold a belief that those that commit violence against homosexuals are acting on.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
09:49 / 26.06.02
Im just wondering if the "I'm not x but..." mantra has come about as a response to political correctness, as a handy verbal opt-out that can be used as a way to deflect criticism (in a similar way to ending statements with "no offense!"), or whether it's a seperate thing.

I didn't want to get the conversation on to the specifics of children and/or parental responsibility, if we consider this in general terms wrt; adults, where does this get us?
 
 
higuita
10:24 / 26.06.02
I always think of the 'I'm not x but...' phrasing as a restructuring of
'I don't feel that I am generally x, but here's an individual instance of y, the telling of which would make it appear that I am x, if I hadn't made sure I had a get-out.'
Either that or it's a 'I'm not generally racist but I don't like the Chinese.'

Which when you look at it like that, as we already knew, makes it look like bollocks.

As for the Nickelodeon thing, I can understand parents not wanting their kids exposed to stuff which deals with sexuality - in any sense - on what is a children's channel. But then there's more than a few programmes you'd have to pull if you were to apply that rule.

To follow on from Ganesh's point, I have two great-uncles, one of whom isn't biologically related to me. The family never spoke of it (the older generation certainly don't, or rather didn't as most of them are dead now) and it was something I had to work out. I grew up thinking they were related, and the idea that they were partners never orbited my head until my teens.

So they have never really been acknowledged as a couple, which is sad in more than one way. But from the other side, my generation of the family were all able to work it out for ourselves, free from anyone else's bias (because to discuss it would mean acknowledging it), with the example of two blokes who have lived together since the 1960s, and care deeply about each other.

Which in a way was great. And in another, not.

You know when you start a post, you have a definite point in mind, and in the structuring of the thought for the writing, the point becomes lost?
 
 
The Natural Way
11:22 / 26.06.02
So, do you think children's telly should avoid sex altogether? Is it a case of "over here there's elves, pokemon, magic and funny cartoon rabbits and over there there's bodies, hair and sex"? A genuine enquiry - just curious to find out why we should "protect" children from all this stuff. Won't this just create more confusion/pain/disgust (and all the attendant kinks and repressions) later on....when it all HAS to be dealt with? Get 'em when they're young's what I say...
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:39 / 26.06.02
I personally think you should start asap. when something comes on television that your kid doesnt understand, or that is an important topic, you take that as serious opportunity to address that issue. good, bad, neither - if kids dont learn from you, theyll pick it up somewhere else, but most likely with lots of trash thrown in to confuse the matter.

but the topic of this thread isnt should we teach our kids about families that differ from our own (which is an emphatic YES), nor is it whether we should allow/accept shows to do it for us. its whether this is a clear case of homophobia, which, while I think its certainly the case for some (or many) people, is not necessarily so for everyone. I dont agree with the stance Ive put forth, only shoving that idea in here.
 
 
Torquemada
11:24 / 08.10.02
I may be mistaken here, but it seems as if the parents who are causing this 'furore', are basically stating that while they tolrate other peoples rights, opinions and feelings, they want to have the final say over how relationships are portrayed to their children, and get nervous when someone insists on educating them about something they have differing opinions on.

If their child started smoking, drinking, drugs (or insert your parenting terror here) then would you blame them, or accept their blaming MTV? I for one have been guilty of thinking 'Oh look, they're trying to blame the TV rather than admitting being bad parents' - but when parents *do* take direct action, as above, the (in this case) gay community goes into shock over the fact that parents might *not* want to influence their kids about sex/ drugs/ etc. and allow them to make up their own minds (I'm pro-drugs, for instance, but I won't offer or allow my kids near them until they're reasonably old enough to make an informed choice).

This 'if you don't agree, then you must be homophobic' attitude frightens me. The extemists always seem to be more rampantly heterophobic these days anyway - Why *aren't* I allowed to be happily Hetero? Why *shouldn't* I encourage my children to be the same? You may be gay, and if so, great, enjoy yourself. But I'm not going to encourage my kids to try out that road unless they demonstrate at least *some* inclination of being on that road themselves anyway.

And remember - it's *kids* we're talking about here - no amount of same-sex-parenting programs are going to make any difference to them once they're at school anyway. You find a kid in school now, with gay parents, who *isn't* mercilessly teased/ abused by the rest of the class, and you've found utopia. We all saw kids programs about mentally/ physically impaired people whilst at school, but it didn't stop us doing merciless impressions the next day (see Joey from Blue Peter, UK Kids program). I mean, really, kids get abuse for their entire schooling for being short, spotty or whatever - you really think the gay-parent kids would be left alone? Discussions I've seen so far about same-sex parenting always seem to be about what the adults want - no-one seems to have done a reality-check on just how different the childs' life will be and what the implications of that are.

It's a question of what's tolerated by society outside the accepted 'norm', really - Single-parents are still trying to prove that they can be as good a parent as two (regardless of wether they can or not), after 30-40 years of single-parents being accepted; I can't seem the gay community having any easier time of it.

Still seeing this 'gay-from-birth' defence too. I'm not saying people aren't (I believe in most cases that it's true), but by that rationale, if my child displays an addictive personality from birth, should I start indulging it in fags/ booze/ drugs just because they've displayed a possible interest? That's the whole point of makin' 'em wait until they're 16 (although the age will always be a bone of contention).

You don't *have* to shield kids from everything either - if our kids ask us about something dodgy going on, I will tell them exactly what they want to know - but I won't, for instance, tell them about Country Music Television - I don't like it, it's up to them what they do in private etc. etc. but that doesn't mean I'm a raging anti-Country activist.

Sorry, very rambling - these are just all points I haven't seen addressed. Anyone enlighten me?
 
 
Milky Joe
11:59 / 08.10.02
It takes us back to the old arguement for TV - if you don't like it turn it off.

If a childs parents decide they don't want there children to see this then that is there to make choice and nothing to do with us. I may think it is fine for kids to watch this but it is not for me to judge another parent who does not think it is fine.

The very people who speak out against people who are judgemental towards minority groups are often the most judgemental of all.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:11 / 08.10.02
Torquemada?

Where the fuck did HE come from?

Where do you start?

I mean, really...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:57 / 08.10.02
No, I like it. Drinking gives you cirrhosis of the liver. Smoking gives you lung cancer and heart disease. Homosexuality gives you AIDS.

Yes.

Wouldn't want to encourage that.

Unless they were on that road already.

(Chris Rea)The road.....to Hell.(/Chris Rea)
 
 
reFLUX
19:48 / 08.10.02
these people are homophobic and don't want to be seen to be homophobic, not even to themselves. in a world where homosexuality seems to be ok they don't want to be seen being homophobic. they want to hide it just incase it's not right to be homophobic. they are conforming to what the world seems to be doing 'cause they see more of 'it' around. even though homosexuality is still not accepted in any meaningful way. homophobia is just hidden away in the face of pc morals, it still exists. and this is just one example.
 
 
Torquemada
23:18 / 08.10.02
Heheh yes hi Nan, thought I'd throw a whole load up and see what came down...

...I was worried that the thread seemed to have established that not wanting to influence kids about homosexuality (and through teaching, by default that is what you're doing) means that you're homophobic. I don't want them to take my opinions as gospel - isn't it better to let them find their own?

Which is a bit like saying that if you don't like Kylie Minnogue but don't mind others listening to her, you still want her stamped out.

Haus - Sex with lots of people can give you aids - gender is secondary really...i only used sex/drugs/drink as an example - you can use Led Zeppelin if you wish - if they like it, I'll indulge 'em...
 
 
the Fool
02:20 / 09.10.02
...I was worried that the thread seemed to have established that not wanting to influence kids about homosexuality (and through teaching, by default that is what you're doing) means that you're homophobic.

Which is a bit like saying that if you don't like Kylie Minnogue but don't mind others listening to her, you still want her stamped out.

Not really. Its more like saying that you don't like Kylie Minnogue but don't mind others listening to her, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes and never play her songs in public or even mention her or her songs in public, unless used to insult someone. That way we can pretend, if we want, that there never was a Ms Mingoue.

Telling Kids that gay people exist, and that they can be parents and possibly even 'normal' does not equate to sexualised propaganda or some sort of recruitment drive. You don't 'catch' homosexuality by being around gay people. Telling kids about Gay parents is not like forcing them to watch gay porn.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:51 / 09.10.02
Haus - Sex with lots of people can give you aids - gender is secondary really...

Actually, sex with one person can give you HIV, a viral condition that reduces the effectiveness of your immune system, which often leads to a number of symptoms and infections generally grouped under the syndromic umbrella of AIDS.

Your sex/drink/drugs analogies - sex and homosexuality appear to share at least some borders. Drink and drugs are both physically damaging, and not generally advised to be given to children. Of course, what your metaphor fails to take into account (because you are an idiot) is that we are not actually talking about giving gay sex to children, or indeed forcibly rearranging perfectly happy hetero couples so that children are compelled to have same-sex parents.

We are talking about a program that perhaps might have been guilty of suggesting that two parents of the same gender can provide families as loving and successful as two parents of different genders. Precisely the sort of press, in fact, that single parents could probably have done with in the past 30-40 years, funnily enough.

Now, what exactly is your objection to this? Is it that parents should not have to deal with the thought that their children now know that their parents need not be of different genders, and will thus start pressuring their parents to sleep around with people of the same gender, in order to keep up with the cool kids in the playground? Is it that the knowledge that adults have same-sex relationships will encourage them to get a Fisher Price cock ring and FUCK THEIR LITTLE BRAINS OUT, just as having heterosexual parents encourages children to go at it like knives in the shed? Or is it that you are afraid that, if they see same-sex parenting, they may be encouraged to TURN GAY themselves, dooming their own children to the kind of bullying that your selfless decision to have sex with women (and we know how hard it is to be happily hetero - all that straight-bashing, people killing themselves because the papers were going to reveal that they were straight, people turned away from jobs for being straight...it's been Hell, I realise) averted from them?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:54 / 09.10.02
Personally, I think that IS homophobic. And what's possibly even more worrying, it's bad parenting in the sense that it's really not preparing children (even hetero ones) for the real world.

On a practical level- if a kid doesn't understand the concept of homosexuality (even if not in a sexual way) then they're more likely to grow up, if they don't know any out gay people, to think that it's weird. And weird's a short walk from wrong, which is the point at which you find bigotry hanging out.

I seem to remember that when I was a kid, my mum told me that gays were very sad people, who weren't to be hated, but pitied. Somewhere along the line (I think it was probably the '80s) she ditched all that, and was incredibly surprised when I told her, a few years after, how shit it had been when my first GIRLfriend had dumped me. I kind of got the impression that she thought I was gay, and didn't care. (The fact that I'm not is actually irrelevant, other than that it facilitated this whole anecdote.) I think- and I honestly do- she'd decided that because I didn't tell her about relationships and stuff, I must have been gay. Which made her rethink her ideas. She seems now to have ditched the whole "sad people... to be pitied" idea.

Which is nice.
 
 
Torquemada
11:58 / 09.10.02
You mean you can get AIDS off of JUST ONE PERSON? Well I never...Haus, I'm generally not biased/ homophobic/ etc. , so please *ask* before filling a paragraph on what you *think* my opinions are.

Fool - Ms. Minnogue - that's exactly the sort of stamping out I meant.

Haus - My objection? It is that after x-million years of evolution, I don't believe that you can simply dispense with one gender from a parenting couple and claim that the child will be raised equally well. I'm not saying that same-sex parents are *incapable* of raising children, I just don't believe they can do it as well as a (dareI-say-it) 'normal' couple. Add on the points you made about what a hard life being gay lets you in for, and I am going to object to kids being taught about it at least until they reach pubery.

And don't hit me with that 'Oh, right, and hetero couples do a grand job don't they' argument, because if in 100 years we have a profusion of single sex couples with kids, you'll simply have the luxury of cases where TWO guys are beating up their children instead of one.

Also, is this a barbelith thing to automatically start insulting people that don't agree with you?

If it's not, educate/ debate with me.

If it is, then f*ck off. Idiot.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:26 / 09.10.02
My objection? It is that after x-million years of evolution, I don't believe that you can simply dispense with one gender from a parenting couple and claim that the child will be raised equally well- Torquemada

I'm in the middle of Pinker's "How the Mind Works", who is a big fan of evolutionary psychology but despite his enthusiasm, he is at pains to point out that these sorts of arguments are often spurious.

Things is, just because we have a social model that delineates "normalcy", this does not mean that there is some fundamental scientific or evolutionary justification for it. Although it may be the case, you would have to work a lot harder than just pointing to the current state of affairs. And no, an unsupported and dubious potrayal of millions of years of human behaviour doesn't really count.

It isn't clear that same sex couples would make worse parents. Moreover, in a free and tolerant society it is inevitable that some gay and lesbian couples will want to have children. If we add to that the certainty that a proportion of children will discover that they are gay then it seems eminently reasonable to admit some positive roles with regards to same sex parenting. I just don't see how denying that kind of portrayal can be anything other than a moral comment on homosexuality. My own thoughts and feelings about people who feel like that are pretty clear.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:21 / 09.10.02
Oh, I know. It just gets so wearying

Ahem.

Welcome to Barbelith, Torquemada. Please drive carefully. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. If you will excuse me, I must go moderate. Moderately.
 
 
Torquemada
13:21 / 09.10.02
Lurid - I suppose my justification would be evolutionary, in the 'we're still here' sense.

Haus - Incoherent? Then ASK, don't insult. Anyway, of course I'm going to say (in so many words) I'm not homophobic, when your previous posts imply that because of my beliefs, I must be....

The link you're missing - Once at pubery they will make their own minds up. Before that - Being Gay = Hard Time, therefore advise them to avoid if poss.

I'll say it again, you really should, like, *ask* people rather than deciding for and then telling them what their opinions are. FOr instance,

My brother is gay, and has been one of my best friends for near 20 years (oh, sorry, no he's not, I'm predjudiced).

I worked in a major London hospital for 10 years, and helped build the STD clinic at St. Barts (but hey, what would I know about HIV?)

But for your sake, pretend I made all that up, and got it from the Daily Mail.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply