We're all a little bit touched

[muckefuck]

I'm still trying to sort out a debate I stumbled into the other day over "homophobia". It concerned a blowhard celebrity, which is bad enough. And it took place on Facebook, which is worse. I suppose YouTube is a less suitable place to attempt any sort of reasonable discussion, but not by much. I'm still not sure I understand the core of the disagreement but today another possibility occurred to me. It would certainly help to explain why we all got so worked up about what is ultimately a rather trivial matter.

Some people have summed up the difference between liberalism and conservatism as whether you think people are basically good or basically evil. Liberals, so the common wisdom goes, think most people (with the exception of some truly hopeless cases with severe untreatable disorders) would be good if given the chance. Their poor choices are the consequence of a lack of opportunity and a deficit of skills. Address these deficits and they'll be free to live up to their full natural potential. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in the concept of Original Sin (even if the non-Christians among them aren't comfortable with that terminology). People are born subject to evil desires which, unless ring-fenced with an objective morality, will ultimately overpower them and lead society to ruin.

(I expect proponents of both philosophies are bristling at what could fairly be called an oversimplification bordering on caricature. But just wait.)

There's another split, however, which I think cuts across this divide, and that concerns the degree of control we have in this situation. In its most negative form, it manifests as theistic fatalism (on the conservative side) or social determinism (on the liberal side). More positively, it's the philosophy of self-actualisation bzw. Objectivism. The reason I think it spans the divide is because it's linked to privilege. Studies show that those who have experienced less discrimination often overestimate the degree to which they are responsible for their own achievements. On the conservative side, this is the smugness of the person born on third base who thinks they've hit a triple. On the liberal, it's the smugness of the Good Liberal who's done such an outstanding job of raising their consciousness.

So here's where I'm going with this: Just as those born with less privilege are cynical about the role ability rather than luck plays in getting ahead, they also tend to be cynical about how well people have really overcome their own prejudices. They take as a given that our society is racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ablist, etc. and thus we, as products of this society, are steeped in these prejudices to the point where it's a lifelong struggle to overcome them. That's why they're not shocked when someone prominent is outed as having said or done horribly bigoted things in private; they assume it's generally the case and most people simply don't get caught out.

Since my homosexuality is the chief (and practically only) source of my own privilege deficit, it's here where my cynicism shows itself most plainly. I'm genuinely pleased at how much LGBTQ acceptance has advanced over the course of my lifetime; we're farther along than I ever hoped when I first came out. But as with any sweeping trend, not everyone's commitment is comparable and the latest (and often most vocal) converts are often the most superficial as well. I see this all the time in supposedly "pro-gay" humour (such as many of the images and videoclips circulated on the occasional of the Sochi Olympics) that makes use of every camp stereotype and queer trope in the playbook--the same fag jokes I grew up with, just repackaged and relabeled.

So that's why when a famous actor (or whoever) who's been outspoken in his support of same-sex marriage is revealed to have used homophobic slurs like "cocksucking faggot", I'm not especially surprised or shocked. And if some pundits call him a "homophobic bigot" on account of that, I don't have much of a problem with it. And when ordinary people (who just happen to be straight) object to this label and denounce the unfairness and inaccuracy of it (even while protesting too much that they're by no means defending his "un-PC" remarks, mind you), I find myself questioning their motives. Well, not so much questioning, as I feel I know what their ulterior purpose is: To preserve the acceptability of this sort of low-level homophobia in their own milieux. Their reaction would be much the same (in kind, although not necessarily in degree) if someone they liked had said something bigoted against people of a particular gender or race or class or what have you.

And it's bullshit. If you spent as much time combatting your imbibed homophobia (or racism or sexism or classism) as you did fighting the suggestion that you're as subject to it as the rest of us (yes, even us homos--that's why internalised homophobia is a thing), just imagine how much further along we'd be. And if those who are dedicated to fighting these biases didn't have to expend so much energy reassuring supposed allies that, yes, we know, you're one of the good ones, not like those awful bigots (in Russia or the South or Downstate--you know, wherever is far enough to be a comfortable distance away)--well, the mind just boggles.

So the next time you find yourself in the position of defending someone who's made comments even you admit are offensive, ask yourself: Why am I doing this? Do I know what concerning trolling looks like and am I willing to admit when I'm indulging in it? And the next time I'm confronted with this, hopefully I'll have a better notion of which buttons of mine are being pushed and why and make more intelligent decisions about how many spoons I'm willing to lay down.

Comments

[danthered.livejournal.com]

the same fag jokes I grew up with, just repackaged and relabeled.

+1.

[mollyc-q.livejournal.com]

+ 2 . Its a bit disconcerting to watch the dynamic. About the only thing that gives me hope for this getting better is that years ago even David Brooks conceded marriage equality was inevitable because younger people find homophobia baffling, or there is an entire generation growing up where stereotypes and ill considered jokes make even less sense as a vehicle for defending GLTBQIs.

And when ordinary people (who just happen to be straight) object to this label and denounce the unfairness and inaccuracy of it (even while protesting too much that they're by no means defending his "un-PC" remarks, mind you), I find myself questioning their motives. Well, not so much questioning, as I feel I know what their ulterior purpose is: To preserve the acceptability of this sort of low-level homophobia in their own milieux. Their reaction would be much the same (in kind, although not necessarily in degree) if someone they liked had said something bigoted against people of a particular gender or race or class or what have you.

As I read what you have written, I have flashbacks to moments of liberal racism and Christo-centrism where its practically a claim to justified microaggression sometimes covered with no really, I am so down with your people....

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

I find myself questioning their motives

I'm 61 years old. Racism is ingrained. I breathed it in with my ABCs despite the fact that these days I have African American friends and I was once engaged to marry an African American man. If someone harassed me relentlessly in public, attacked my family physically, and pushed all my buttons, there's a possibility that I would respond with a racist epitet. I'd like to think I wouldn't. But I might.

I don't think that says anything about my present-day sensibilities. But many would disagree.

My own feeling is that the celebrity in question here was bullied. Ironically enough, I think he was the victim here.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

You might. But when called on it afterward, would you then try to claim that you were completely unaware the epithet was racist and then go on to verbally attack those called you out? I'd like to think you wouldn't, but then I'd like to think the best of everyone.

Ironically enough, I think he was the victim here.

I'm not sure "ironic" is the word I'd use.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

But when called on it afterward, would you then try to claim that you were completely unaware the epithet was racist and then go on to verbally attack those called you out?

No, I wouldn't. Accountability is a cornerstone of personal integrity in my particular corner of the universe.

My guess is that since he spoke in anger, he doesn't actually remember what he said. I suppose the best response in those situations would be just to admit that.

I was an entertainment journalist throughout the early 1990s. There were some real bottom feeders back then, and I can only imagine the Internet and social media have made these vultures even more predatory. I don't have enough of a sense of you as a person to hazard a guess what your hot buttons might be. You come across as someone who's very level-headed, so maybe you don't have any! (Insert smiley.)

I have a very short fuse myself. When I'm baited, I can say outrageous things that I deeply regret saying later. Baiting is a form of bullying in my book.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Yeah, several of the commenters tried to shift the conversation to how he was baited and spoken in anger. I can completely understand losing your cool and saying things you wish you hadn't--or things which, upon reflection, you don't actually think are true but which you chose to say because you knew how hurtful they'd be. And I can't even imagine the pressure that comes with being a celebrity and having your every utterance broadcast and subjected to global scrutiny.

But what I objected to within the debate were the repeated attempts to completely disassociate what one says in anger from what one believes. As I pointed out, my father, now in his 70s, grew up in rural Maryland and has a short fuse. He's said a lot of things in anger, some of them very sexist, but I can't remember him ever saying anything racist or homophobic. And yet, when I came out to him, he warned me that he expected he'd react uncomfortably when I first brought a romantic partner home. Not because he had any conscious objection to it, but because he simply wasn't raised to regard loving affection between men as normal.

In the end, that didn't happen. But it meant a lot to me that he had the humility and thoughtfulness to admit that it could happen, that good intentions alone aren't enough to transcend a lifetime of socialisation. And that's what I'm not always seeing when very privileged actors are called on their (perhaps unintentional, perhaps unconscious) prejudices.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

Some people have summed up the difference between liberalism and conservatism as whether you think people are basically good or basically evil.

I think a more fundamental difference is how much do you view the State as a force for good compared to non-governmental institutions. After all, Liberals may believe that the downtrodden are fundamentally good, but they are awfully cynical when it comes to the individuals running major corporations. Conservatives may underestimate the institutionalized forces keeping folks down, but their major distrust is with government remedies to the situation. Morality is less of a ring-fence than a structure for living, which will ultimately bring reward.

All that being said, I can see your wider point. I've really never had anyone attack my fundamental identity, and, even if I did, I can gain confidence from the notion that society as a whole supports me. There may, in theory, be certain instances where I'm attacked for being straight, but I can draw strength from the knowledge that the vast majority of people on this earth think being straight is okay. I think that's where defenders of privilege miss the point. Even if they are being attacked in this instance (and, let's face it, it's mostly a perception of being attacked) they know that they have solid backing. It's not even usually an 'us vs. them' thing. Most minorities don't begrudge the majorities their existence. They just want to be treated equally, which can be hard to see if you don't realize you're being treated better.

If the privileged are put in the unfamiliar position of having to defend, and, more importantly, examine, their actions; then I say all the better. I put myself in this category. It's not comfortable, or comforting, to confront your own privilege, particularly if you don't realize how much of an advantage it gives you. But, let's face it, there are worse things you could be forced to do.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

As Hari Kondabolu so memorably put it, "I'll take white guilt over racism any day. White guilt sounds awesome."

[mlr.livejournal.com]

I read with interest this post & the comments. I appreciate the thoughtful way you laid out your thesis.

An observation: this area of human interaction (and how each interaction comments on intention, conscience, mores, etc.) is so hopelessly complex, that each new incident almost requires its own small thesis.

Two examples from my week: I'm reading a bio of Rimbaud. There are oddly no illustrations yet interesting descriptions of the few photographs, sketches, and the one painting that contains his image. In my surfing to find the images themselves I ran across a Patty Smith song: Rock n roll n*****. I really don't know much about the song other than it was written in 1978. A brief perusal of the lyrics seem to indicate that Smith is appropriating the n word for [artistic] purposes. [Not sure if that is the right word]. Is this OK? Was it OK in 1978 but not now? If a Texas songwriter in 2014 tried to use this as a title, it would be quite controversial.

This week, Israel & myself went to a family wedding in Santa Cruz. I was a stranger to many people there, and had to introduce myself over & over. I usually just abbreviated it to: I'm Israel's partner of 32 years. Oddly enough, out of the 10 or so people that were actually from Santa Cruz or the neighboring villages, 5 or 6 of them immediately responded: Oh you'll find Santa Cruz is a very accepting place. My gut feeling each time was: Really? We're not only in northern California, but in a small town with one of its famous liberal colleges. And you still have to say that? I can't imagine a local gay stranger immediately coming back with this.

In both situations, my mind is filled with questions & potential questions, but doesn't resolve to a thoughtful explanation. Only to a numbness with the multiplicity of implications.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Oh you'll find Santa Cruz is a very accepting place.

I suppose more than anything that tells you what they think of the place you came to there from.

[mlr.livejournal.com]

Good point. But in many cases I don't think they knew where we were from. His family is scattered over the country. But they could have easily assumed somewhere in Redlandia.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Dude, have you not heard yourself speak?

[mlr.livejournal.com]

That bad, huh?

It's odd, I don't feel like a hick. I guess I'm less self-aware than I thought. Oh well, it will only gnaw at me for weeks.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I find it funny and a little sad that you and clintswan equate "having an identifiable Southern accent" with being "a hick". I thought Texans in particular were more positive in their evaluations of their regional speech patterns.

If it's any consolation, I asked monshu if he could've placed you based on your accent and he said, no, he thought you sounded like you "could've been from anywhere".

[mlr.livejournal.com]

No worries. I should have put LOL in there. But I'll accept the diplomatic 'anywhere'.