Am I Homophobic?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I might get restricted for saying this, but fuck it at least I'm honest. I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people. Every gay guy I know acts like a girl. And not a cool girl, but a spoiled ass *****y girl. I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool. The only cool gay person I know is my uncle, who acts like a normal ass person. I don't know, I'm just uncomfortable around the very flamboyant types so I don't hang out around them. I don't know if this makes me homophobic, and if it does, what should I do about it? Also, I realize it sounds like I'm stereotyping all gay people, but I don't know too many but the ones at my school I don't like at all.

[gorillafuck]

Ya, you seem like you're homophobic. You need to consciously try to deconstruct it and get rid of it in your mind.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I guess. I mean should I really go out and befriend the gay kids at my school? I have nothing in common with them, plus their kind of assholes. And is my ass about to get restricted? I don't really have a problem with gays in general, just the ones I know I guess.

[FreeFocus]

Well, it's rather stereotypical, including your apparent belief in gender roles ("acts like a girl"). But personally, I don't like the stereotypical flamboyant or obnoxious person, whether it's a girl or a gay man (e.g. J. Alexander from America's Next Top Model, he's pretty damn annoying).

If it's flamboyance you don't like, I don't think that makes you homophobic, as long as you dislike all (obnoxious) flamboyance as I pretty much do. If you wouldn't talk to someone or interact with them just because they're gay, that's a different story.

You do seem homophobic, but it's commendable that you've acknowledged it and are taking steps to combat it.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Well I guess I meant gender roles in our society right now. Its not so much that they're feminine, but that they act *****y as fuck and snotty like they have a fucked up view of what a girl should be. Its almost as if they watched the OC and took notes or some shit. Keep in mind that I know very few gays though.

[LeninKobaMao]

Hmmm... seems as though i'm kind of like you when around gay people. I don't mind if they act like normal heterosexual people but if they are like Queer Eye For The Straight Guy I find them tbh kind of annoying. Not that I am against gay people at all but it's just the really 'flamboyant' ones that annoy me. For example I don't mind them being gay in the sexual sense it's just the ones that go out of their way to act like it that annoy me. I have met heaps of gay people and haven't had a problem with them.

Will I get restricted now?

[New Tet]

I might get restricted for saying this, but fuck it at least I'm honest. I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people. Every gay guy I know acts like a girl. And not a cool girl, but a spoiled ass *****y girl. I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool. The only cool gay person I know is my uncle, who acts like a normal ass person. I don't know, I'm just uncomfortable around the very flamboyant types so I don't hang out around them. I don't know if this makes me homophobic, and if it does, what should I do about it? Also, I realize it sounds like I'm stereotyping all gay people, but I don't know too many but the ones at my school I don't like at all.

If you don't like the elegant way they sashay, don't hang out with them, my friend.

But don't condemn them or in anyway judge them badly; They are the way they are exactly for the same reason you are who you are.

One possible way out of your dilemma is for you to start cultivating more and varied friendships with women. And I not just for fucking, either.

The more you learn from wise women, the better you'll learn to understand and love your gay friends and the better you'll understand your own contradictory feelings.

It was either Tennyson or Byron (a notorious bi-sexual) who said that in order to become a real man you must first discover the woman within you.
One way to do that is to hang out with honest women and gradually form lasting and edifying relationships.

[Manifesto]

Don't worry about it. You even said yourself that your uncle acts normal and hes gay. Just ignore those people that do that unless they hit on you.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Damn thats another thing. I've heard the "Everyone's a little bit gay" argument before I'm not gay at all. Like I'm not trying to be cool or cover up anything, but my attraction level for men is absolutely 0%. Maybe thats why I can't relate with gay people. But I'm not about to go hang out with spoiled girls who are more concerned about their looks and getting laid than anything else. I already have to put up with a girlfriend, thats enough drama for me, thanks.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Manifesto, I don't think you were saying this, but your comment reminded me of all the times I've heard straight guys worry about gay men hitting on them. Why do straight people always seem to think gay people will hit on them? I've been hit on a couple of times by men and women I had no desire to date and I have to tell you... it's pretty sweet each and every time.

If I was hit on by people of the same sex all the time, I would go to gay bars every time I was feeling bad or needed a boost of self-confidence. Sorry gentlemen, I'm just here for the drinks and good conversation.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

If I was hit on by people of the same sex all the time, I would go to gay bars every time I was feeling bad or needed a boost of self-confidence. Sorry gentlemen, I'm just here for the drinks and good conversation.

That shit made me laugh.

[Revy]

Even radicals are affected by the racism, sexism and homophobia within society. Deal with yourself and how you were uncomfortable to move beyond it. Strict gender norms shouldn't be important to you. And, most gay men are actually more masculine than feminine, so you need to drop the stereotypes. Not like being effeminate is a bad thing at all, are you thinking of those few that take it to an extreme? Yeah, but they're human beings too.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Damn thats another thing. I've heard the "Everyone's a little bit gay" argument before I'm not gay at all. Like I'm not trying to be cool or cover up anything, but my attraction level for men is absolutely 0%. Maybe thats why I can't relate with gay people. But I'm not about to go hang out with spoiled girls who are more concerned about their looks and getting laid than anything else. I already have to put up with a girlfriend, thats enough drama for me, thanks.

Yeah, this is all pretty stereotypical. Are you in high school? I would suggest you actually do seek out and befriend gay people - maybe some women too (I mean straight women generally have an attraction to men, so does that mean you have nothing in common with them either?). The more people you meet, the more you will realize that there is no inherent "gay" behavior and no real inherent "male" or "female" behavior.

The first thing to realize is that people is people and that is it. The range of gay behavior or female behavior covers just about all the range of behavior and attitudes of men too.

I don't mean to sound preachy - which no doubt I am - but if you are in high school or a small college, then it would be good to meet a wider-range of folks.

[Manifesto]

Manifesto, I don't think you were saying this, but your comment reminded me of all the times I've heard straight guys worry about gay men hitting on them. Why do straight people always seem to think gay people will hit on them? I've been hit on a couple of times by men and women I had no desire to date and I have to tell you... it's pretty sweet each and every time.

If I was hit on by people of the same sex all the time, I would go to gay bars every time I was feeling bad or needed a boost of self-confidence. Sorry gentlemen, I'm just here for the drinks and good conversation.
No it would just shock me a bit if I was hit on by another guy I'm not going to do anything if it happens. But no I don't go "I won't go near a gay guy because they might hit on me" or anything. My friend was hit on by gay guys at Cedar Point which I thought was funny because he is very homophobic actually all of my friends are besides the atheist ones.

[KC]

Sounds more like sexism than homophobia, in that you dislike the thought of men acting "feminine".

[SoupIsGoodFood]

No, I just don't like men or women acting like spoiled pretentious *****es. That is all.

[New Tet]

But I'm not about to go hang out with spoiled girls who are more concerned about their looks and getting laid than anything else.

I'm always on the alert for "girls who are more concerned about their looks and getting laid". If they are of consenting age, I'll oblige to their wishes, safely and respectfully.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Well thats cool for you, but since I have a girlfriend and I ain't planning on cheating I'd rather chill with a girl I can have at least a somewhat intelligent conversation with.

[KC]

No, I just don't like men or women acting like spoiled pretentious *****es. That is all.

Well if that's the reason then you're not homophobic or sexist at all.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Coo.

[jake williams]

First off: we're all a little homophobic, a little racist, a little sexist, etc. - at least a little. We live in a poisonous society and the biggest danger is pretending we don't, or pretending we're immune to it.

I think partly you're wrong about gay people: for the most part gay men don't "act like girls". But I think partly, there is femininity that for all sorts of complicated reasons (and I really believe very few of them are natural) have been incorporated into gay male identity. And I think partly when we see this, there's sort of a reactionary response based on gender norms. But I think partly in the process of gay men incorporating essentialist ideas about what "femininity" is into their own identities, they're actually reinforcing the gender norms they say they're challenging.

It really is mixed and complex, and I think we should think critically about it. I think a lot of what constitutes modern Western "femininity" is really messed up, and we should be uncomfortable with that: but I don't think we should be uncomfortable because gay men are doing it, we should be uncomfortable because anyone does it. In fact we should be more uncomfortable when women do it, because it's not that there's nothing to the role even some pretty mainstream (and even borderline reactionary) ideas about gay identity play in, to use the term, problematizing gender norms. But ultimately I think we should be moving past them.

[cb9's_unity]

I was pretty much in your situation a while ago. The first few gay people I met were ignorant fucks. I kept my mind open and I've met some pretty cool gay guys. Recently my friend came out of the closet and despite the fact that everyone was surprised no one really cared and he hasn't been treated any differently.

[Il Medico]

No, I just don't like men or women acting like spoiled pretentious *****es. That is all.
If this is your reason, then no. However, your stereotypical views of homosexuality and gender roles you should work on fixing. Btw, '*****' is not an acceptable word here on revleft, please don't use it again.

Love,
Captain Jack

[JimmyJazz]

I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool.

It's a hallmark of prejudice that the prejudiced person thinks every good [homosexual/black person/woman/etc] they meet is some sort of exception to the rule.

You hardly sound phobic of homosexuals, I just think you're a bit prejudiced about them.

And even so, you already seem to realize that what bothers you has nothing to do with sexual orientation per se, and that it's more of a cultural thing that some gay kids at your school have picked up on. Personally, I hate the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy guys because they are shallow cultural pushers and consumerist, elitist, ubercapitalist pricks. Not because they are gay.

For your homework assignment: Go watch Milk.

[communard resolution]

I'm pleasantly surprised how this thread turned out to be a conversation that could actually be of some help to the homophobe/sexist/racist.

I'm glad the usual 'revleft ban hyenas' haven't jumped at the chance to present themselves as immaculate by denouncing other people's imperfections.
I believe the way it's handled here is the way forward. Congrats everybody.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think the fact that you're willing to criticise and examine your own attitudes is reason enough that you shouldn't be restricted. I find really camp people annoying; lots of gay people do too. Also I agree with what Jammoe said - we live in an incredibly homophobic society, none of us are communist superheroes, we all have little bits of homophobia in our mind somewhere, and it's better to recognise that and deal with it than to pretend we're perfect.

[Module]

I don't feel particularly comfortable with the people in this thread who seek to excuse their prejudice by saying 'I don't mind gay people, just the ones who are shallow/*****y/some other ridiculous stereotype'.
You might as well be saying 'I don't mind black people, just the murderers, rapists and welfare cheats'.
I'm not surprised that you don't know many gay people, SoupIsGoodFood, because if you did I doubt you would be coming out with such harsh words against them. One should always be suspicious of detailed descriptions of groups of people by somebody who also admits they don't know much about them. It really is outright prejudice.
I seriously don't want to sound harsh, but I also don't think you should walk away from this question thinking you have some justification for hating 'the flamboyant ones' or whatever.
There are '*****y' and shallow gay men, but there are also *****y and shallow straight men, and straight women, and gay women. There are also going to be fairly even numbers of them.
What makes *****y and shallow gay men particularly repulsive for some people is the fact that they are gay. Sort of like, to bring up my previous comparison, there are white murderers and rapists, too. But when somebody actually knows a black person who is a murderer or a rapist they slot the 'murderer and rapist' block into their 'typical black person' box in their mind and see that it fits.
I don't see why people here should be apologising for gay men, as in "not all of them are like that". Of course they're not. The very idea that they would all be like that is purely homophobic crap.
When you meet a straight man that is rude or unpleasant, would you ever consider that to say something about straight men as a group of people?
A gay man being *****y and shallow only becomes relevant to his sexuality if you accept the stereotype to begin with.
As for gay men being effeminate, so what? I'm female, I'm feminine. I'm sure the vast majority of women you know are feminine. So what do you think about them?
Why on earth should gay men not be feminine? Is there something wrong with it? I don't think women have anything to apologise for, either.

jammoe: I accept that gender roles as they currently exist are harmful and unnecessary, but you can't single out 'woman' from 'man' unless you're talking about specific things because they go hand in hand. If the female gender role is undesirable, so is the male one undesirable.
If you're replying to SIGF disliking effeminate men for being shallow and *****y, I can tell you right now that shallowness and *****iness does not in any sense come from femininity. That's another blatant stereotype, and not at all one anybody here should be accepting.

[Coggeh]

^
He was confused about him thinking that a certain group of gay people were '*****y' and didn't like them meant he thought he was being homophobic , he clearly wasn't .You have to understand that even in leftist circles that people aren't perfect on prejudices , years of stereotyping of sections of society such as women or gay people won't be completely changed by a few weeks or months on this site . We have to work at breaking down stereotypical views and discuss them . Not just lampoon people with 'oh you hate gays' attitude when he was very plainly confused about something .

[Module]

Of course not. I'm not trying to "lampoon" anyone.
But if you're going to break such views down, do it right. You can't just say 'If you don't like the gay men you know because you think they're [stereotypical portrayal of gay men] then you're not homophobic'.

[Coggeh]

Of course not. I'm not trying to "lampoon" anyone.
But if you're going to break such views down, do it right. You can't just say 'If you don't like the gay men you know because you think they're [stereotypical portrayal of gay men] then you're not homophobic'.
People have already done it right . They've shown that alot of people hate a certain stereotype , i don't like the people from queer eye for the straight guy , their a stereotype of gay men . Does that make me homophobic ? thats basically what he was asking . No it doesn't , and the stereotype is bullshit . Which users have already pointed out aswell.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

While I don't think you're homophobic, I do think you're a bit prejudiced.


I was pretty much in your situation a while ago. The first few gay people I met were ignorant fucks. I kept my mind open and I've met some pretty cool gay guys.

I find this strange. I mean, what does their being gay have to do with anything? Nobody would ever say ''I met some straight people who were ignorant fucks'', so why emphasize the fact that they're gay? By grouping them together you're already making a distinction between gay people and straight people, as though you expect them to be different somehow. Ignorant fucks are ignorant fucks, regardless of sexual orientation.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm not surprised that you don't know many gay people, SoupIsGoodFood, because if you did I doubt you would be coming out with such harsh words against them. One should always be suspicious of detailed descriptions of groups of people by somebody who also admits they don't know much about them. It really is outright prejudice.
He wasn't describing a group of people, he was describing specific individuals he knows. He makes it clear that his uncle, and the gay posters he knows on here, are every bit as gay, but don't fit that description, and he has nothing against them. In time, I'm sure he'll get to meet more gay people, and realise that most of them have nothing to do with that stereotype.

Of course not. I'm not trying to "lampoon" anyone.
But if you're going to break such views down, do it right. You can't just say 'If you don't like the gay men you know because you think they're [stereotypical portrayal of gay men] then you're not homophobic'.
But he has made it clear that he doesn't have a problem with the ones who don't fit into [stereotypical portrayal of gay men].
Without wanting to sound like a patronising ageist fuck here, I do think that the fact that he's in high school is relevant. Most of the gays he knows will be fellow high-schoolers who've just come out of the closet, and are unsure about what the implications of that for the rest of their identity are. In that situation, there is a temptation, even a pressure, to conform with the roles created by the media for gay men, and these roles are often shallow and annoying. Teenage gays who can't relate to that stereotype at all are probably more likely to stay in the closet, and so won't register as "gay".

[OneNamedNameLess]

If you're replying to SIGF disliking effeminate men for being shallow and *****y, I can tell you right now that shallowness and *****iness does not in any sense come from femininity.

I think you are overlooking something here. Shallowness and *****iness do not come from femininity, correct. However, many ignorant folk believe it does, including gay men. Did it ever occur to anyone that these traits may have been adopted by gay men in order to come across as more feminine? In addition, the gays soup is referring to tend be a part of some sort of homosexual subculture which is noticeable in schools. Most gays I know are like this and I know plenty. It doesn't bother me personally but I can't understand why they must act like a stereotypical female. If someone does not like this kind of behaviour then they are not homophobic. Young girls play up to this stereotype too hence t-shirts and rings which can be bought and sported with the word '*****' written across them.

[Pogue]

I'm always on the alert for "girls who are more concerned about their looks and getting laid". If they are of consenting age, I'll oblige to their wishes, safely and respectfully.

The main reason why I think you are still a virgin is because you constantly feel a need to tell us on this forum that you are some sort of sex god. Maybe in your own imagination you are, but no one here is fooled, and to be honest, its getting a bit cringy hearing about how big you think your dick is, so give it a rest.

[OneNamedNameLess]

The main reason why I think you are still a virgin is because you constantly feel a need to tell us on this forum that you are some sort of sex god. Maybe in your own imagination you are, but no one here is fooled, and to be honest, its getting a bit cringy hearing about how big you think your dick is, so give it a rest.

I don't think so. He is making me all curious :blushing: Please tell me you are in the UK New Tet?

[communard resolution]

Did it ever occur to anyone that these traits may have been adopted by gay men in order to come across as more feminine?

You are quite wrong. 'Camp' behavior was originally not an attempt to come across as more feminine, but a means for gay men to recognise each other in public in times when homosexuality was a punishable crime - so they adopted certain 'aristocratic' mannerisms that were seen as outdated by that time.

Over time, it certainly developed a dynamic of its own and simply became part of gay culture (in some circles). Many gay men are unaware of the origins of 'camp' behaviour, assuming it is just 'the way they feel' rather than it being socially passed on. There is also quite strong hatred against 'effeminate' men in parts of the gay community. In a sense, this is understandable given that the stereotypical 'queen' is often presented as representative of gay men and something to be ridiculed in mainstream media. In my opinion, though, it's regrettable that some gay men don't grant others to step outside traditional gender roles - I disagree with the wish to impose limits on human expression.

If you're interested in 'camp' sensibility beyond just the mannerisms, here's Susan Sontags famous (and interesting) essay of 1964:

Notes On Camp (http://interglacial.com/%7Esburke/pub/prose/Susan_Sontag_-_Notes_on_Camp.html)

[JimmyJazz]

That's pretty interesting Nero. I think it would be equally wrong to say either of these things: that "straights should accept gays despite their effeminate mannerisms", or that "straights do have to accept homosexuals but don't have to accept the ones that act effeminately". The first one is wrong because it implies that all homosexuals act that way, which is obviously false. But the second one is also wrong, because although not all gays act anything close to that way, the ones that do still have a reason for doing so. The ones that maintain an effeminate/campy/etc image do so as a way to define and differentiate themselves in a culture that is overwhelmingly heteronormative, and they deserve understanding too, but that understanding should be based on the fact that they developed those mannerisms not simply from being gay but from being gay in a certain social environment.

If I gave the wrong impression in my earlier post (Module made me look at it in a different light), I do want to stress that the Queer Eye guys not only don't bug me because they are gay, but they also don't bug me because (a few of them) are rather effeminate; rather, they bug me in the exact same way as the teens on The O.C. or the straight girls on My Super Sweet 16 bug me. They are incredibly shallow. In other words, they bug me the way 99% of people on "reality" TV bug me. Although I didn't mean it this way, I can see how my previous post might have read as, "I think we should accept homosexuals in general, but here's a token subgroup of homosexuals to hate, because we can't just say 'I accept homosexuals' and leave it at that." Of course, heterosexuals can and should say "I accept homosexuals" and leave it at that.

[fiddlesticks]

I don't think you sound homophobic and I can kind of relate to the way you feel. It's not the fact that they are gay that makes you dislike them, just that they are really obnoxious and annoying, reasons why I don't like being around a lot of chicks. You can't really make yourself like them so just stay away from them.

[StalinFanboy]

Hmmm... seems as though i'm kind of like you when around gay people. I don't mind if they act like normal heterosexual people but if they are like Queer Eye For The Straight Guy I find them tbh kind of annoying. Not that I am against gay people at all but it's just the really 'flamboyant' ones that annoy me. For example I don't mind them being gay in the sexual sense it's just the ones that go out of their way to act like it that annoy me. I have met heaps of gay people and haven't had a problem with them.

Will I get restricted now?
Yeh, damn those people for wanting to act the way they want to!

[Die Rote Fahne]

I guess. I mean should I really go out and befriend the gay kids at my school? I have nothing in common with them, plus their kind of assholes. And is my ass about to get restricted? I don't really have a problem with gays in general, just the ones I know I guess.


You have to ask yourself these simple questions:

Is being gay wrong/a choice?

Should Gay marriage be legalized?

Should gays enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals?

Do I dislike these gays for being gay? Or for being annoyingly effeminate?

[Module]

I don't think you sound homophobic and I can kind of relate to the way you feel. It's not the fact that they are gay that makes you dislike them, just that they are really obnoxious and annoying, reasons why I don't like being around a lot of chicks. You can't really make yourself like them so just stay away from them.
Uh, excuse me? You think women and gay men are more "obnoxious and annoying" than straight men? Are you joking? What a douchebag you are.

[Red Raw]

You sound like a closet Homo and dam you sound hot.Us sisters we love a guy in denial, your so in de nile your drowning.
Honey iam the key to open your closet.


She was afraid to come out of the locker
She was as nervous as she could be
She was afraid to come out of the locker
She was afraid that somebody would see
Two three four tell the people what she wore
It was an Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot
That she wore for the first time today
An Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini
So in the locker, she wanted to stay
Two three four stick around we'll tell you more

She was afraid to come out in the open (badadup)
So a blanket around her she wore (badadup)
She was afraid to come out in the open (badadup)
So she sat, bundled up on the shore (badadup)
Two three four tell the people what she wore
It was an Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini
That she wore for the first time today
An Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini
So in the blanket, she wanted to stay
Two three four the stick around we'll tell you more

Bop bop bop bop bopopopopopopop
Now she's afraid to come out of the water
And I wonder what she's gonna do
Now she's afraid to come out of the water
And the poor little girl's turning blue
Two thee four tell the people what she wore
It was an Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini
That she wore for the first time today
An Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini
So in the water, she wanted to stay
From the Locker to the blanket
From the blanket to the shore
From the shore to the water
Guess there isnt any more i love this song!!


I find this tune very fitting for the op.

[fiddlesticks]

Uh, excuse me? You think women and gay men are more "obnoxious and annoying" than straight men? Are you joking? What a douchebag you are.


I don't think all women and gay men are obnoxious and annoying, just the obnoxious and annoying ones. I can't argue against my douchebaggery though.

[Pogue]

I think there needs to be some clarification on the 'we're all a bit racist/sexist/homophobic' thing.

I don't think its true to say we are all abit of one of these things. I don't think you can be 'a bit racist', you either are or you are not.

I think though that everyone might hold some beliefs which they can easily argue down to themselves in there head that might pop up because of the perception portrayed in the media. I think the main difference is when you recognise that something you have thought or said is stupid or predjudiced, or racist, and you work to rectify it. Say for example, you find out someone is gay, and thus you act differently around them. You know in your head there is no reason too, but you do it anyway. You see it in alot of people, they way they act in regards to this person changes. However, this person is not homophobic, because they don't actively believe there is anything wrong with being gay, or that a gay man will not be able to resist the urge to shove their penis up your arse (probably the most widely held myth about gay people I have found, I am sure its the same for many people). Yet they still may act differently or in a slightly predjudiced manner based upon the society they live in and perhaps the fact this is something they are not used too.

I don't think its the same with racism. I don't think anyone is a little bit racist. I can't think of a single time I have been racist. And I don't mean pathetic conceptions of racism such as achknowledging someones skin colour or whatever, I mean actually displayed racial predjudice.

I think one difference is invasive thoughts too. I think for alot of people they fear they are racist, sexist or homophobic because an thought will suddenly ping into their head which is one of these things. Or they might assume something. But I think the difference is in how you think about this. Most people, if they found themselves thinking something racist, would feel bad about it, correct themselves or rationalise their thoughts, whereas an actual racist would believe the thought and nurture it.

I think racism is different from homophobia which is different from sexism though. I don't think I have or ever will be racist. I am too attuned to issues of racism to be like that. Nor homophobia either. I have rationalised that one, I don't care if someone is gay or straight or whatever. I think sexism is something you will encounter more even with people who consider themselves anti-sexist because gender roles are so ingrained within us, on both sides. I mean small assumptions of what a woman or man can or can't do. I challenge any assumptions I make and I would not say I am sexist in any of my beliefs or actions but I am aware that this is probably the one people are most likely to become perpetraitors of without realising it. And I mean everyone.

To the OP: I think you may hold some stereotyped opinions that alot of people have that will pop into their head on a spur of the moment that might make them think or act a certain way. The point is how you rationalise this. I am sure you are intelligent enough to think it through and realise that gay people do not all act like that, etc etc. The same way most people might get an invasive thought that is predjudiced but they can think about it and break it down, realise it is irrational and be ok with it.

I think the main thing is not to worry about small things like that and actually take sometime to think about what you actually believe. I can look at it and objectively recognise that race is irrelevant, that men are not better than women, that there is nothing wrong with being gay, etc. Can you?

[Lyev]

As far as I'm concerned, there's people that are '*****y' that are gay and people that are '*****y' that aren't gay. The two are totally separate. To associate a personality trait with an entire group of people just because you've met people belonging to that group with that trait is wrong. 'I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people' doesn't seem very well phrased. Shouldn't it be 'I'm uncomfortable around *****y people'? To be honest I only know about 2 gay people. And I can honestly say I don't feel uncomfortable around them, why should I?

[Philosophical Materialist]

With possibly the majority of gay and lesbian people the fact is that you'd never know unless they told you. A very feminine male or a very masculine female might tell you something by appearance but most gay and lesbians are indistinguishable from straight people.

[jake williams]

As for gay men being effeminate, so what? I'm female, I'm feminine. I'm sure the vast majority of women you know are feminine. So what do you think about them?
I don't like femininity or masculinity. The men and women I like and respect aren't very "feminine" or "masculine". A lot of the characteristics that constitute masculine and feminine are normal characteristics of everybody - a lot of them are even positive characteristics. But when a person says that they are one basically arbitrary set of characteristics: in the feminine case, the subordinate set, in the masculine case, the dominating set; that's extremely unhealthy. In fact it's morally wrong for all sorts of reasons. Us progressive Western feminists get very upset when heterosexual men take on a violent, misogynistic gender identity - to not get upset at all when women reciprocate implies beliefs about female agency and subjectivity that precisely constitute patriarchy.


a) Why on earth should gay men not be feminine? b) Is there something wrong with it? c) I don't think women have anything to apologise for, either.
a) I've explained why
b) As I said, the problem is with femininity, not with men doing it
c) That's a ridiculous statement. It's practically meaningless. If you mean that women as a group don't have any responsibility for the existence of patriarchy, well, sort of, but I don't know if I'd even accept that. I certainly don't accept that no women are individually responsible for maintaining patriarchy. In fact, patriarchy couldn't function without women helping maintain it.


but you can't single out 'woman' from 'man' unless you're talking about specific things because they go hand in hand.
I don't know what you mean.


If the female gender role is undesirable, so is the male one undesirable.
Not necessarily, but as a matter of fact.


If you're replying to SIGF disliking effeminate men for being shallow and *****y, I can tell you right now that shallowness and *****iness does not in any sense come from femininity. That's another blatant stereotype, and not at all one anybody here should be accepting.
"Shallowness and *****iness" is part of an artificial construct of gender. It's not inherently "feminine", but nothing is "inherently" feminine. The stereotyping is the process that renders certain characteristics part of a gender identity - not the recognition of this process.

[pastradamus]

Of course not. I'm not trying to "lampoon" anyone.
But if you're going to break such views down, do it right. You can't just say 'If you don't like the gay men you know because you think they're [stereotypical portrayal of gay men] then you're not homophobic'.

Yes, whats wrong with what he said?

Nobody ever likes to be treated as a stereotype or be sub-categorised into one. So a gay man has every right not to be inserted into the stereotype category and I know a gay man whom I work with who Hates the gay stereotype passionetly and he said "how are gay people ever going to be taken seriously when everybody thinks of us as screaming queens" which he attributed as being down to this stereotype.

You seem to get hypersensitive about this issue.

[RotStern]

I must admit I consider myself homophobic as much as I try to keep an open mind I just cannot stop having harsh feelings about them.
I hope I will grow out of it though because there are a few theories than one out of every 1 mean is actually gay.
that means some of my good friends could be gay.
So I hope I grow out of this before I find out so I can continue some good friendships.
It looks like your a little like me but i am much worse.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

You sound like a closet Homo and dam you sound hot.Us sisters we love a guy in denial, your so in de nile your drowning.
Honey iam the key to open your closet.


This post made me laugh out loud for real cause every time I write about a group of people I get accused of being them. I guess I sound like a white gay person on the internet:lol:. I guess I would call myself prejudiced because every gay person I know except one subscribes to this stereotype. Obviously its not their fault I'm prejudiced and I need to step up and stop thinking like that. Another thing, is it homophobic to be grossed out by gay sex? I don't think so because there are some heterosexual sex acts I'm grossed out by too. I mean I don't think they're wrong I just don't like them. I don't know.

[ZeroNowhere]

I might get restricted for saying this, but fuck it at least I'm honest. I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people. Every gay guy I know acts like a girl. And not a cool girl, but a spoiled ass *****y girl. I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool. The only cool gay person I know is my uncle, who acts like a normal ass person. I don't know, I'm just uncomfortable around the very flamboyant types so I don't hang out around them. I don't know if this makes me homophobic, and if it does, what should I do about it? Also, I realize it sounds like I'm stereotyping all gay people, but I don't know too many but the ones at my school I don't like at all.
Well, seeing as you would appear to be having problems with their personalities, rather than them making you want to hide under a chair for safety, and don't seem to be afraid of your uncle, I would say you're not homophobic. Whether or not you're biased in your judgment of homosexuals is another question, but that can't really be known just by you describing knowing some people who act like 'spoiled ass *****y girls', since it is plausible that that's an unbiased viewpoint.


Uh, excuse me? You think women and gay men are more "obnoxious and annoying" than straight men? Are you joking? What a douchebag you are.I'm not entirely sure how you could interpret that post like this. The person said that they didn't like people who were obnoxious or annoying, and did not state that gays were any more 'obnoxious and annoying' than anybody else. Other than that, he said he avoided a lot of females because they were obnoxious and annoying, and it is perfectly plausible that there could be lots of obnoxious and annoying females somewhere, due to social influence, cliques and so on.


Yeh, damn those people for wanting to act the way they want to!Yes, some people can be quite annoying when they act the way they want to.


Is being gay wrong/a choice?I like how you randomly chuck a purely empirical issue into something on whether people dislike homosexuality.


Just ignore those people that do that unless they hit on you.And then continue ignoring them.


I would suggest you actually do seek out and befriend gay people - maybe some women too"Hi, I want to be friends with you because you're gay."


(I mean straight women generally have an attraction to men, so does that mean you have nothing in common with them either?).He may very well have nothing in common with some or many women, just as he has nothing in common with the gays he knows and presumably many hetero males as well.

[black magick hustla]

I don´t like femininity as it is manifested in present gender roles. I don´t like the attributes associated with it like submission, passivity, overt concerns with how people surrounding you perceive you, too much grooming, etc. I don´t care if they get manifested in males or females. I don´t like that females are raised like this. I don´t like that females are raised to be touchy but are not encouraged to think in abstractions (mathematics), or are encouraged to have thicker skins. I dont like the idea that females are raised to tiptoe around issues rather than being quick and blunt.

There are some masculine things I dislike too. I dont like the idea of the strong, stoic man. I dont like the idea that we cannot cry or be overtly emotional. I like the idea of someone intense. I dont like the idea that we need to be physically strong.

I like honest, intense, and creative people.

[Module]

I don't like femininity or masculinity. The men and women I like and respect aren't very "feminine" or "masculine". A lot of the characteristics that constitute masculine and feminine are normal characteristics of everybody - a lot of them are even positive characteristics. But when a person says that they are one basically arbitrary set of characteristics: in the feminine case, the subordinate set, in the masculine case, the dominating set; that's extremely unhealthy. In fact it's morally wrong for all sorts of reasons. Us progressive Western feminists get very upset when heterosexual men take on a violent, misogynistic gender identity - to not get upset at all when women reciprocate implies beliefs about female agency and subjectivity that precisely constitute patriarchy.
What on earth does this have to do with subordination? Femininity is not inherently inferior and masculinity is not inherently superior. To recognise sexism and inequality in gender roles is not to say that being masculine or feminine is to consider yourself subordinate or dominant. That’s simply ridiculous to say. You think women think they’re dressing submissively when they put a dress on instead of trousers? At what point in this discussion did anybody suggest gay men were taking on a subordinate identity? This is about them being feminine, and believe me that is absolutely not the same thing. Gender roles are a product of society, there is nothing objective about them in themselves, the culture of which will and has changed and is changing. There is nothing inherently subordinate about femininity, there is nothing inherently dominant about masculinity. Just because gender inequality and disadvantage exists does not mean it is necessary, justified or inevitable. I absolutely do not get upset when heterosexual men conform to the masculine gender role. I get upset at specific aspects of this ‘role’, violence or misogyny, neither of which are necessary and have been increasingly minimised in the West over time because they are undesirable, what values or behaviours people attach to it, which as you said yourself is an arbitrary set of characteristics.



a) I've explained why
b) As I said, the problem is with femininity, not with men doing it
c) That's a ridiculous statement. It's practically meaningless. If you mean that women as a group don't have any responsibility for the existence of patriarchy, well, sort of, but I don't know if I'd even accept that. I certainly don't accept that no women are individually responsible for maintaining patriarchy. In fact, patriarchy couldn't function without women helping maintain it. God knows where you are getting some of this shit from, when have I said that women don’t maintain patriarchy? I haven’t said it, I wouldn’t say it. I have no idea why you think femininity is a problem. Why is femininity a problem but masculinity isn’t? And you realise that in this situation the dichotomy exists. In fact the issue of the effeminacy of gay men is specifically their rejection of masculine qualities over feminine ones. Is there is a problem with femininity there is equally a problem with masculinity. You are, again, equating the existence of masculinity and femininity with patriarchy. Patriarchy is not necessary for the existence of gender roles and the acceptance of masculinity or femininity does not equate to the acceptance of patriarchy.


I don't know what you mean. Masculinity and femininity are not simply defined by their specific sets of characteristics but their relationship to each other. You can’t reject one as a whole and not the other as a whole.


Not necessarily, but as a matter of fact.What?


"Shallowness and *****iness" is part of an artificial construct of gender. It's not inherently "feminine", but nothing is "inherently" feminine.Like you said, gender is an arbitrary set of characteristics – it changes even from individual to individual, not simply from society to society, but even then, gender does not encompass the entirety of an individual’s social identity. Like I said, there are shallow and *****y gay men just as there are straight men/women/gay women. There is nothing feminine about shallowness or *****iness; it certainly isn’t something any of my female friends aim for. Does that mean they aren’t feminine? Just because one individual is shallow and *****y obviously does not mean that is informed by their desired femininity.

[black magick hustla]

its not necessarily that "feminity" entails just characterists of females. feminity is a social construct. when straight men are being shallow and *****y a lot of other folks would call them faggots or girly. the point is that because gender roles are completely constructed, they are not essential to each sex, and that is why you find aspects in both sides.

[Module]

That's not true, Marmot. When straight men are shallow and *****y they simply are shallow and *****y. The implications of the word '*****y' imply femininity itself, it's a sexist word after all, but objectively speaking men are shallow and '*****y' just as often - they insult other people, they insult others for the way they look or for other shallow reasons.
When they do this they are not called faggots or girly. On the contrary, one could say that a lack of empathy is often considered to be a masculine trait, and verbal aggression a common way of trying to assert macho dominance over other people.

[black magick hustla]

have no idea why you think femininity is a problem. Why is femininity a problem but masculinity isn’t?

I would argue some aspects of feminity are unhealthy from a class discourse (some of them being obviously symptomatic of lack of political and economic power). There are some aspects of feminity that are "submissive". This have nothing to do with inconsequential stuff like dresses or earings. They are psychological aspects. For example, encouraging women to avoid confrontation, to look for a "stronger man to protect them" (strength here implying not only physical strength, where the difference is biological, but mental strength, like courage for example. This is why in some cultures it is encouraged to talk "bluntly" to men while to women you need to treat them "nicer"). Parents always press their daughters to groom themselves more and be more self conscious about their physical aspect too. This is why you probably know more women with issues like anorexia than you do males.

You might say there is no objective standard in which to argue that this "feminine" aspects are bad, but from a "power" point of view, they are. How do stop being stepped on if you embrace your slave morality?

There are some aspects of masculinity that are unhealthy too. Hiding your emotions being my main concern. Engaging in violence being another one. However, I would argue that because there are more ruling class males than females, dominating traits are encouraged more in males. For example, we are not attracted to "strong" females, whether mentally or physically, because our families and our communities encourage us to be able to confront the problems. Males are encouraged to be more independent than females. Indepence and "strength" are archetypal attributes of maleness, we are expected to be like that. In my opinion, this are healthy traits in the context of class society.

[black magick hustla]

That's not true, Marmot. When straight men are shallow and *****y they simply are shallow and *****y. The implications of the word '*****y' imply femininity itself, it's a sexist word after all, but objectively speaking men are shallow and '*****y' just as often - they insult other people, they insult others for the way they look or for other shallow reasons.
When they do this they are not called faggots or girly. On the contrary, one could say that a lack of empathy is often considered to be a masculine trait, and verbal aggression a common way of trying to assert macho dominance over other people.

*****iness, (lol) is generally associated more with complaining, not insulting. A *****y person is someone who complains a lot, rather than sucking it up or doing something about it. I agree males can be very shallow, but in my opinion the shallowness associated with males is very different. For example, males are miuch more simpler, except overtly trendy types. when putting some clothes on and there are less males suffering from things like anorexia.

[Module]

I would argue some aspects of feminity are unhealthy from a class discourse (some of them being obviously symptomatic of lack of political and economic power). There are some aspects of feminity that are "submissive". This have nothing to do with inconsequential stuff like dresses or earings. They are psychological aspects. For example, encouraging women to avoid confrontation, to look for a "stronger man to protect them" (strength here implying not only physical strength, where the difference is biological, but mental strength, like courage for example. This is why in some cultures it is encouraged to talk "bluntly" to men while to women you need to treat them "nicer"). Parents always press their daughters to groom themselves more and be more self conscious about their physical aspect too. This is why you probably know more women with issues like anorexia than you do males.

You might say there is no objective standard in which to argue that this "feminine" aspects are bad, but from a "power" point of view, they are. How do stop being stepped on if you embrace your slave morality?

There are some aspects of masculinity that are unhealthy too. Hiding your emotions being my main concern. Engaging in violence being another one. However, I would argue that because there are more ruling class males than females, dominating traits are encouraged more in males. For example, we are not attracted to "strong" females, whether mentally or physically, because our families and our communities encourage us to be able to confront the problems. Males are encouraged to be more independent than females. Indepence and "strength" are archetypal attributes of maleness, we are expected to be like that. In my opinion, this are healthy traits in the context of class society.
Of course all that is true, but it's a social issue that can't be pinned down to the existence of gender roles. Like I said in my 3rd post, as an example, violence and misogyny are aspects of masculinity which have been minimised in the West, which are no longer seen as so desirable. Similarly one could say subservience and lack of ambition are aspects of femininity which have been minimised in the West.
What I am saying is that of course sexism and inequality exists, but it is not inherent in masculinity and femininity, individuals accept and reject different parts of gender roles, increasingly nowadays as their social importance is eroded people have more flexibility and the differences in socialisation, although still obvious, are not nearly as much as they were 50 or 100 years ago.
If I wear a skirt today that doesn't mean that I'm leaving the house acccepting, for example, undesirable psychological aspects of femininity along with it. Femininity is a social construct, and as a member of society I can interpret it how I want. It isn't a constant, it isn't a necessary, objective set of characteristics that one must accept as an entirity.

[Aeval]

*****iness, (lol) is generally associated more with complaining, not insulting. A *****y person is someone who complains a lot, rather than sucking it up or doing something about it.

I've never heard someone use the word '*****y' to mean this - 'whingy', maybe. A *****y person is someone who is deliberately nasty to other based on very superficial things, this tends to include making nasty comments about what people look like, ridiculing everything someone else says or does, talking about people behind their backs and trying to get other people to join in with being horrible to them, that's why '*****ing about someone' = saying nasty things about them behind their back

[jake williams]

I have no idea why you think femininity is a problem. Why is femininity a problem but masculinity isn’t? And you realise that in this situation the dichotomy exists. In fact the issue of the effeminacy of gay men is specifically their rejection of masculine qualities over feminine ones. Is there is a problem with femininity there is equally a problem with masculinity.
I've explicitly said that I don't like either.

I don't like femininity or masculinity.
You're directly contradicting what I explicitly said. The reason you're doing so is because feminism has degenerated into a sort of liberal essentialism where the extent of your analysis is "men should stop being mean to women" and that women need to reclaim some sort of mystical natural "equality". In the usual sort of liberal pattern, there aren't systems of power: you just have some individuals being "discriminatory". In fact, for the most part we've even resuscitated what made sense in 1905 but what is hardly excusable now: the notion that women are actually morally purer than men, they're more caring and careful and considerate and so on. You can only maintain this by ignoring the place this plays in a power system (patriarchy).

I'm not saying that you're exactly this kind of feminist. I'm only saying that this is the backdrop against which a lot of the modern discussion is played out.


What on earth does this have to do with subordination? Femininity is not inherently inferior and masculinity is not inherently superior. To recognise sexism and inequality in gender roles is not to say that being masculine or feminine is to consider yourself subordinate or dominant. That’s simply ridiculous to say. You think women think they’re dressing submissively when they put a dress on instead of trousers? At what point in this discussion did anybody suggest gay men were taking on a subordinate identity? This is about them being feminine, and believe me that is absolutely not the same thing. Gender roles are a product of society, there is nothing objective about them in themselves, the culture of which will and has changed and is changing. There is nothing inherently subordinate about femininity, there is nothing inherently dominant about masculinity. Just because gender inequality and disadvantage exists does not mean it is necessary, justified or inevitable. I absolutely do not get upset when heterosexual men conform to the masculine gender role. I get upset at specific aspects of this ‘role’, violence or misogyny, neither of which are necessary and have been increasingly minimised in the West over time because they are undesirable, what values or behaviours people attach to it, which as you said yourself is an arbitrary set of characteristics. ... You are, again, equating the existence of masculinity and femininity with patriarchy. Patriarchy is not necessary for the existence of gender roles and the acceptance of masculinity or femininity does not equate to the acceptance of patriarchy.
I don't think gender roles should exist anyway, in the abstract: but our gender roles are based within patriarchy. You couldn't have patriarchy without women acting "like women" and men acting "like men". This isn't to say that the problem can be solved simply by individuals changing their actions; it's simply to say that gendered action is required to sustain a power system. On the other hand, because our gender roles are based in patriarchy, if you accept them you're not only accepting the ugliest reactionary ideas about women, you're accepting one of the major parts of that power system. In fact, insofar as gender as a system of power is based on the gendered distribution of labour (and social power), and one could call these "roles", you probably could argue that patriarchy is the creation and maintenance of unequal gender roles. So I utterly disagree with you.


Masculinity and femininity are not simply defined by their specific sets of characteristics but their relationship to each other. You can’t reject one as a whole and not the other as a whole.
I reject the construction of roles totally: I don't think we should have masculinity or femininity, basically. But I think the individual characteristics are more complex. Some are value-neutral, some aren't. Gender roles do exist (and are created) within the context of a power system. So a lot of the characteristics that show up are directly correlative to that.


There is nothing feminine about shallowness or *****iness; it certainly isn’t something any of my female friends aim for.
There is nothing "inherently feminine" about anything: but since "femininity" is a however approximately defined set of characteristics - it is a thing in the sense of a social construct, it's not just a meaningless term - it happens to incorporate a kind of "shallowness and *****iness". You can't use the ambiguity and complexity and fluidity to say gender roles don't mean anything. They do.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

With possibly the majority of gay and lesbian people the fact is that you'd never know unless they told you.
Or if they have a boyfriend/girlfriend. That one's usually a bit of a giveaway. ;)


I hope I will grow out of it though because there are a few theories than one out of every 1 mean is actually gay.
Is this a typo, or are all men now gay?

To recognise sexism and inequality in gender roles is not to say that being masculine or feminine is to consider yourself subordinate or dominant.
No. The feminine role is a subordinate one. How could patriarchy continue to exist without women playing a subordinate role?

There is nothing inherently subordinate about femininity, there is nothing inherently dominant about masculinity.
As jammoe says, there's nothing inherently masculine/feminine about anything; but femininity and masculinity in patriarchal society (so, pretty much all existing societies, or at least the vast majority) are constructed as sub and dom respectively.

I get upset at specific aspects of this ‘role’, violence or misogyny, neither of which are necessary and have been increasingly minimised in the West over time because they are undesirable, what values or behaviours people attach to it, which as you said yourself is an arbitrary set of characteristics.
I think you're being over-optimistic here. Things might be less bad than they were, but society is still misogynistic as fuck.

I have no idea why you think femininity is a problem. Why is femininity a problem but masculinity isn’t?
Again, they are both problems. The point has to be to get rid of both.

You are, again, equating the existence of masculinity and femininity with patriarchy. Patriarchy is not necessary for the existence of gender roles and the acceptance of masculinity or femininity does not equate to the acceptance of patriarchy.
What is patriarchy if not the maintenance of existing gender roles? That's like saying "the acceptance of having a job where an employer extracts surplus value from you does not equate to the acceptance of capitalism."

There is nothing feminine about shallowness or *****iness; it certainly isn’t something any of my female friends aim for. Does that mean they aren’t feminine?
It means they're less feminine, which is good.


You might say there is no objective standard in which to argue that this "feminine" aspects are bad, but from a "power" point of view, they are. How do stop being stepped on if you embrace your slave morality?
How do you stop stepping on other people if you embrace a master's morality?

However, I would argue that because there are more ruling class males than females, dominating traits are encouraged more in males.
And surely dominating other people should be recognised as an incredibly undesirable characteristic for any kind of a socialist or anarchist to have?

For example, we are not attracted to "strong" females, whether mentally or physically...
Well, speak for yourself.

Males are encouraged to be more independent than females. Indepence and "strength" are archetypal attributes of maleness, we are expected to be like that. In my opinion, this are healthy traits in the context of class society.
In the context of patriarchal society, masculinity is a really unhealthy thing for a man. There are positives and negatives to both roles, but they're still both ultimately shit. I have heard arguments that the feminine role is actually better, but I'm unconvinced. This is like arguing about whether it's better to be a hungry proletarian or an employer who's comfortable because they exploit other people; both have their ups and downs, but our aim is to abolish both categories.

Like I said in my 3rd post, as an example, violence and misogyny are aspects of masculinity which have been minimised in the West, which are no longer seen as so desirable.
Again, they may be less pervasive than they were, but they're still everywhere. Have you ever watched TV or seen a movie?

[Module]

I've explicitly said that I don't like either.

You're directly contradicting what I explicitly said. The reason you're doing so is because feminism has degenerated into a sort of liberal essentialism where the extent of your analysis is "men should stop being mean to women" and that women need to reclaim some sort of mystical natural "equality". In the usual sort of liberal pattern, there aren't systems of power: you just have some individuals being "discriminatory". In fact, for the most part we've even resuscitated what made sense in 1905 but what is hardly excusable now: the notion that women are actually morally purer than men, they're more caring and careful and considerate and so on. You can only maintain this by ignoring the place this plays in a power system (patriarchy).

I'm not saying that you're exactly this kind of feminist. I'm only saying that this is the backdrop against which a lot of the modern discussion is played out.What on earth are you even talking about, here? I don’t even feel like I can respond to any of this because it just has fuck all to do with the conversation, in particular what I have been saying.


I don't think gender roles should exist anyway, in the abstract: but our gender roles are based within patriarchy. You couldn't have patriarchy without women acting "like women" and men acting "like men". This isn't to say that the problem can be solved simply by individuals changing their actions; it's simply to say that gendered action is required to sustain a power system.And a “power system” is not a prerequisite for the existence of gender. It doesn’t matter if you don’t think they “should exist”, they do exist and probably will always exist. Of course you can’t have patriarchy without women acting “like women” and men acting “like men”. That doesn’t mean that a woman who acts like a woman supports patriarchy, or that a man acting like a man supports patriarchy. Like I said, what constitutes acting ‘like women’ or ‘like men’ is not an objective set of traits or values or behaviours.

On the other hand, because our gender roles are based in patriarchy, if you accept them you're not only accepting the ugliest reactionary ideas about women, you're accepting one of the major parts of that power system. In fact, insofar as gender as a system of power is based on the gendered distribution of labour (and social power), and one could call these "roles", you probably could argue that patriarchy is the creation and maintenance of unequal gender roles. So I utterly disagree with you.Every aspect of our culture and social structure is shaped by the material conditions within which our society functions. The music I listen to on the radio, the clothes I wear, the language I use are all examples of the influence of my material conditions. Our entire society and culture is based in not only ‘patriarchy’, but also, for example, racism, and above all, capitalism. Should I reject the culture of my society? Should I not listen to the music I want to listen to, wear the clothes I want to wear or use the language that I know because it is part of a culture developed within capitalism? If I accept that culture, am I accepting capitalism, am I accepting all the social hierarchies within which I have my own place as a participant in socio-cultural life in my country? Of course I’m not. Similarly, if I conform to the female gender role, am I accepting patriarchy? Of course not. I’m an intelligent human being. I can criticise and reject aspects of my culture that do not suit me or that I do not like. I can be feminine and still be a feminist. People do that all the time. An example of this is the change that has and is occurring in terms of our society’s gender roles. That, and the ongoing change in all aspects of socio-cultural life everywhere in the world.



I reject the construction of roles totally: I don't think we should have masculinity or femininity, basically. But I think the individual characteristics are more complex. Some are value-neutral, some aren't. Gender roles do exist (and are created) within the context of a power system. So a lot of the characteristics that show up are directly correlative to that. I don’t see how masculinity and femininity will ever not exist, until men and women do not exist as sexes.


There is nothing "inherently feminine" about anything: but since "femininity" is a however approximately defined set of characteristics - it is a thing in the sense of a social construct, it's not just a meaningless term - it happens to incorporate a kind of "shallowness and *****iness". You can't use the ambiguity and complexity and fluidity to say gender roles don't mean anything. They do.Of course femininity is not a meaningless term. It also isn’t an objective ‘thing’ which somebody either is or is not. Somebody may consider it part of their identity as a man or a woman to be a specific thing like, for example, shallow and *****y, that somebody else identifying as the same gender does not. I’m obviously not going to say that gender roles don’t mean anything – I’m also not going to go to the other equally ridiculous extreme and claim that somebody being feminine means that they accept “the ugliest, reactionary ideas about women”, as you have. Gender is a little more complicated than you seem to comprehend.
Traditional ‘feminine virtues’, if we're to ignore this, far from incorporating *****iness, include empathy, gentleness and kindness. If for some people being feminine means being *****y and shallow it’s obviously not a general inclusion. It’s a negative misogynistic stereotype that very few women actually accept or aspire to. The idea that somebody is agreeing with, identifying with or accepting that stereotype if they’re feminine really is just bullshit.

The Ungovernable Farce, I don't think there's much point responding to your post, you're repeating what jammoe has said so I'll just be repeating what I've said.

[Il Medico]

I'm not entirely sure how you could interpret that post like this. The person said that they didn't like people who were obnoxious or annoying, and did not state that gays were any more 'obnoxious and annoying' than anybody else. Other than that, he said he avoided a lot of females because they were obnoxious and annoying, and it is perfectly plausible that there could be lots of obnoxious and annoying females somewhere, due to social influence, cliques and so on.

This is pretty much on the dot. The high school me and fiddlesticks went to was a 'richer' school. Her and I were from the two working class neighborhoods filtering into that school. There were a lot of prepy, self centered, and obnoxious people who went there.


Uh, excuse me? You think women and gay men are more "obnoxious and annoying" than straight men? Are you joking? What a douchebag you are.
She didn't say that. She didn't word it badly, she said exactly what she meant. She never said all girls and gay guys were annoying, no, rather she didn't like being around ones who were. Your reply was insulting and uncalled for, especially considering she never said any of the things you accused her of.

[Module]

She didn't say that. She didn't word it badly, she said exactly what she meant. She never said all girls and gay guys were annoying, no, rather she didn't like being around ones who were. Your reply was insulting and uncalled for, especially considering she never said any of the things you accused her of.Er, no, I don't think it was bad wording, either.
And so I don't think my reply was uncalled for and if fiddlesticks made the same post I'd give the same reply. Sorry. :rolleyes:
And I think they can defend themselves, don't you?

[Il Medico]

Er, no, I don't think it was bad wording, either.
And so I don't think my reply was uncalled for and if fiddlesticks made the same post I'd give the same reply. Sorry. :rolleyes:
And I think they can defend themselves, don't you?
What are you on about? Fiddlesticks was the one who made that comment. I really don't see how you could misinterpret what she said. She said that felt the same (as in not liking to be around) annoying people (in specific women and gay guys, as this is the topic of the thread). She then went on to say that not wanting to be around annoying members of a certain group does not make you prejudiced against that group. (A view I am sure all of us here share). You then took a statement that said the former and accused the poster of saying straight men are less annoying than gay men or women. How is that not uncalled for? And to top it off, you felt the need to verbally insult her with the term 'douchebag'. And despite that fiddlesticks, Zeronowhere, and I all explained the comment (which, I still don't see how it would be misinterpreted anyways), you still insist that you would make the same insulting reply. And as for me defending Fiddlesticks, I'll defend whoever I bloody hell want to. Especially if they are being unfairly attacked.

[Module]

What are you on about? Fiddlesticks was the one who made that comment. I really don't see how you could misinterpret what she said. She said that felt the same (as in not liking to be around) annoying people (in specific women and gay guys, as this is the topic of the thread). She then went on to say that not wanting to be around annoying members of a certain group does not make you prejudiced against that group. (A view I am sure all of us here share). You then took a statement that said the former and accused the poster of saying straight men are less annoying than gay men or women. How is that not uncalled for? And to top it off, you felt the need to verbally insult her with the term 'douchebag'. And despite that fiddlesticks, Zeronowhere, and I all explained the comment (which, I still don't see how it would be misinterpreted anyways), you still insist that you would make the same insulting reply. And as for me defending Fiddlesticks, I'll defend whoever I bloody hell want to. Especially if they are being unfairly attacked.I know Fiddlesticks was the one who made that comment...? Where have I said otherwise?
The topic of this thread is about gay men, not women. To say you don't like being around 'a lot of chicks' because they're 'obnoxious and annoying' is to specify that a lot of chicks, as opposed to some other social group, are obnoxious and annoying. If gay men and women are specifically annoying to the point a lot of them you don't like being around, then obviously it follows that they are more annoying that non-women and gay men. So, no, pointing that out (or, just acknowledging it, actually) is not even remotely uncalled for.

Anyway, I don't see the point of continuing my involvement in this thread. It's not going towards anything, and I've said what I needed to say. So, go nuts.

[counterblast]

Yes, you are homophobic.

This is a heterosexist equivalent of;

"I like black people unless they act like *******."

Do you ask every "butch-acting" (cis)male you meet "What is your sexual orientation?", or do you just make character evaluations based on stereotypes?

Also, I would even go so far as to suggest that your inclination that "men must act like men, and women must act like women" is masking transphobia as well.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Every aspect of our culture and social structure is shaped by the material conditions within which our society functions. The music I listen to on the radio, the clothes I wear, the language I use are all examples of the influence of my material conditions. Our entire society and culture is based in not only ‘patriarchy’, but also, for example, racism, and above all, capitalism. Should I reject the culture of my society? Should I not listen to the music I want to listen to, wear the clothes I want to wear or use the language that I know because it is part of a culture developed within capitalism?
Not all aspects of culture reflect fucked hierarchical values; gender roles do.


I don’t see how masculinity and femininity will ever not exist, until men and women do not exist as sexes.

Do you understand the difference between sex and gender?

[mosfeld]

Don't worry about it. You even said yourself that your uncle acts normal and hes gay. Just ignore those people that do that unless they hit on you.

Sorry to derail this thread, but this is such typical homophobic attitude. ''Oh no, Im fine with gays as long as they leave me alone''. Yeah, if homosexuals hit on you then they're clearly going over the line, buddy. Homosexuals are born attracted to their own gender, and taking action against them because they're hitting on you is the equivalent of taking action against an ugly woman who harbors feelings for you and hits on you. Can't you see anything wrong with that? Shouldn't you just take it as a compliment?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Yes, you are homophobic.

This is a heterosexist equivalent of;

"I like black people unless they act like *******."

Do you ask every "butch-acting" (cis)male you meet "What is your sexual orientation?", or do you just make character evaluations based on stereotypes?

Also, I would even go so far as to suggest that your inclination that "men must act like men, and women must act like women" is masking transphobia as well.

We've already been over this shit. Reread the thread. Goddamn.

[pastradamus]

Yes, you are homophobic.

This is a heterosexist equivalent of;

"I like black people unless they act like *******."

Do you ask every "butch-acting" (cis)male you meet "What is your sexual orientation?", or do you just make character evaluations based on stereotypes?

Also, I would even go so far as to suggest that your inclination that "men must act like men, and women must act like women" is masking transphobia as well.



Thats going way too deep into it.

If somebody dosent like Feminine Qualities in a man than thats just an opinion. If someone dosent like Masculine qualities in a woman, its again an opinion.

Its does NOT mean the application of Homophobia, Transphobia or Sexism.
It also does not mean that because someone does not like these qualities than he/she will discriminate based on this.

Likewise, If a Hetrosexual man is repulsed by the thought of homosexual acts, it dosent mean he discriminates against the person and again its only natural for a homosexual person to be repulsed by acts of a hetrosexual nature. Its desire, Not discrimination.

[black magick hustla]

How do you stop stepping on other people if you embrace a master's morality?

Too bad I never argued for "master morality".


And surely dominating other people should be recognised as an incredibly undesirable characteristic for any kind of a socialist or anarchist to have?

Yes.

Well, speak for yourself.

Oh fuck off. I was talking about masculinity as a sociological construct, not talking about "myself". Maybe in your isolated college campus and your women´s studies class people are not like that.


In the context of patriarchal society, masculinity is a really unhealthy thing for a man. There are positives and negatives to both roles, but they're still both ultimately shit. I have heard arguments that the feminine role is actually better, but I'm unconvinced. This is like arguing about whether it's better to be a hungry proletarian or an employer who's comfortable because they exploit other people; both have their ups and downs, but our aim is to abolish both categories.
I said there are some aspects that are healthy and unhealthy. I don´t think domination is a healthy aspect. I do think strength, independence and asseriveness are healthy aspects.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Too bad I never argued for "master morality".

That's what masculinity amounts to, tho. To say that masculinity is better than femininity is basically choosing "master morality" over "slave morality", when (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) the point is to reject both.


Oh fuck off. I was talking about masculinity as a sociological construct, not talking about "myself".

Fair enough. When I'm talking about a sociological construct that I don't identify with, I tend to not call it "we", tho.


Maybe in your isolated college campus and your women´s studies class people are not like that.
Cool anti-intellectualism bro.

I said there are some aspects that are healthy and unhealthy. I don´t think domination is a healthy aspect. I do think strength, independence and asseriveness are healthy aspects.

There are positives and negatives to both roles... both have their ups and downs.
I never denied that there are healthy aspects to masculinity, I just think that we can't let them blind us to the fact that masculinity as a whole is an unhealthy concept, just as much as femininity.

[RotStern]

yeah it was a typo i meant 1 out of 10

[Invincible Summer]

IMO, being uncomfortable around/annoyed by flamboyance does not necessarily equate to homophobia. Homophobia, in my mind, is being uncomfortable with/taking a disliking to the sexual aspect of the homosexual person in question.

[fiddlesticks]

I know Fiddlesticks was the one who made that comment...? Where have I said otherwise?
The topic of this thread is about gay men, not women. To say you don't like being around 'a lot of chicks' because they're 'obnoxious and annoying' is to specify that a lot of chicks, as opposed to some other social group, are obnoxious and annoying. If gay men and women are specifically annoying to the point a lot of them you don't like being around, then obviously it follows that they are more annoying that non-women and gay men. So, no, pointing that out (or, just acknowledging it, actually) is not even remotely uncalled for.

Anyway, I don't see the point of continuing my involvement in this thread. It's not going towards anything, and I've said what I needed to say. So, go nuts.

I included the bit about some women and some gay men being annoying because it is often the same kind of annoying, extremely judgmental, *****y, ect. It is just something that I have noticed where I live, and I realize it was rather unnecessary to include in my post. I think that everyone is annoying at some point in time, and I don't hate all women and gay men because some of them are annoying.Thank you for your opinion, module, life is just not very interesting if no one disagrees. Thank you captainjack for having my back.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Hmmm... seems as though i'm kind of like you when around gay people. I don't mind if they act like normal heterosexual people but if they are like Queer Eye For The Straight Guy I find them tbh kind of annoying. Not that I am against gay people at all but it's just the really 'flamboyant' ones that annoy me. For example I don't mind them being gay in the sexual sense it's just the ones that go out of their way to act like it that annoy me. I have met heaps of gay people and haven't had a problem with them.

Will I get restricted now?

Normality is inherently tyrannical. The very concept of normality sets a societal precedent of intolerance for that which is in any way different.

[Black Dagger]

I guess I would call myself prejudiced because every gay person I know except one subscribes to this stereotype.

But that doesn't mean you buy into the stereotype right? Coz you must know that being gay does not stipulate or suggest conformity to any type of personality or behaviour other than a desire to have sex with people of the same sex. That is, there is nothing inherently 'gay' in any of the negative you see in people.



Another thing, is it homophobic to be grossed out by gay sex? I don't think so because there are some heterosexual sex acts I'm grossed out by too. I mean I don't think they're wrong I just don't like them. I don't know.

It makes sense that you would not be turned on or particularly interested in watching 'gay sex' - but i guess only you know whether your feelings extend beyond that sentiment to a more prejudiced one.

By social standards the idea that a heterosexual man would be 'grossed out' by 'gay sex' is not homophobic, but expected - I.E. If you're not grossed out by 'gay sex' then you must be in the closet! It's a socially acceptable viewpoint that is reinforced constantly (despite 'gay sex' being virtually identical to 'hetero sex' in every meaningful sense) - so it's not suprising that you would have this reaction but it is nevertheless a component of social homophobia, 'the things they do are so gross!!!' It's a part of the other-ising of gay folks and is highly suggestive of homophobia/close-mindedness.

'Gay sex' does not involve anything hetero couples do not do (it's not like 'gay sex' = child sacrifice and cannibalism), so why is it 'gross'? Is it the sex, or the idea behind it that is 'gross'? The idea of two men kissing? The idea of two men fucking?

[Manifesto]

Sorry to derail this thread, but this is such typical homophobic attitude. ''Oh no, Im fine with gays as long as they leave me alone''. Yeah, if homosexuals hit on you then they're clearly going over the line, buddy. Homosexuals are born attracted to their own gender, and taking action against them because they're hitting on you is the equivalent of taking action against an ugly woman who harbors feelings for you and hits on you. Can't you see anything wrong with that? Shouldn't you just take it as a compliment?
Many guys don't like it when they are hit on, I wouldn't do anything. And I am pretty sure I explained this in another post.

[Black Dagger]

Many [hetero] guys don't like it when they are hit on [by guys], I wouldn't do anything. And I am pretty sure I explained this in another post.

Fixed that for ya ;)

What isn't there to like? I mean as in any context, as long as the person hitting on you respects your wishes (if you decline their advances) and is not being sleezy, i don't see the downside to being hit-on? It's a compliment, you don't like being complimented by guys (why?) or you're not mature or secure enough with your own sexuality to 'deal' with being hit on by someone of the same-sex? Either way, i think that's a pretty immature attitude, i understand where it comes from - and it sure as hell ain't rare but that doesn't make it right, nor logical within a lick of sense. Hopefully that is something you'll grow out of when you become an adult (i retain this hope in the interests of teenage boys everywhere).

[Manifesto]

I won't exactly be happy about it but I won't be creeped out or anything. And thanks for at least not being another person that says I am homophobic when I am talking about other guys and for fixing that.

[jake williams]

Fixed that for ya ;)

What isn't there to like? I mean as in any context, as long as the person hitting on you respects your wishes (if you decline their advances) and is not being sleezy, i don't see the downside to being hit-on? It's a compliment, you don't like being complimented by guys (why?) or you're not mature or secure enough with your own sexuality to 'deal' with being hit on by someone of the same-sex? Either way, i think that's a pretty immature attitude, i understand where it comes from - and it sure as hell ain't rare but that doesn't make it right, nor logical within a lick of sense. Hopefully that is something you'll grow out of when you become an adult (i retain this hope in the interests of teenage boys everywhere).
I'm pretty hetero, and I like it when I'm hit on by guys, it's flattering.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

^
He was confused about him thinking that a certain group of gay people were '*****y' and didn't like them meant he thought he was being homophobic , he clearly wasn't .You have to understand that even in leftist circles that people aren't perfect on prejudices , years of stereotyping of sections of society such as women or gay people won't be completely changed by a few weeks or months on this site . We have to work at breaking down stereotypical views and discuss them . Not just lampoon people with 'oh you hate gays' attitude when he was very plainly confused about something .

I see both sides of this.

But I think an important fact to consider is that in many cases those who come off as homophobic are also compensating for their uncertainty of their own sexuality. Sometimes they are closeted and scared into compensating.

On the other hand, I understand frustration with statements that come off as prejudiced.

[Il Medico]

But I think an important fact to consider is that in many cases those who come off as homophobic are also compensating for their uncertainty of their own sexuality. Sometimes they are closeted and scared into compensating.

This is dead on. When I was in my early teens, before I came to grips with my own sexuality, I went through the "OMG gay people are icky" thing. Not proud of it, but it happens, A LOT. I think that is one of the main roots of homophobia, the fear of your own feelings towards members of the same sex (no matter how small), and the attempt to distance yourself from what you fear. (by attacking it)

[counterblast]

Thats going way too deep into it.

If somebody dosent like Feminine Qualities in a man than thats just an opinion. If someone dosent like Masculine qualities in a woman, its again an opinion.

Its does NOT mean the application of Homophobia, Transphobia or Sexism.
It also does not mean that because someone does not like these qualities than he/she will discriminate based on this.

Likewise, If a Hetrosexual man is repulsed by the thought of homosexual acts, it dosent mean he discriminates against the person and again its only natural for a homosexual person to be repulsed by acts of a hetrosexual nature. Its desire, Not discrimination.


No. It means either someone has internalized the oppressive gender system of hetero-patriarchy or has reached these bigoted conclusions on their own.

As for the latter statement; being repulsed by something and not participating in something are two different things.

[counterblast]

IMO, being uncomfortable around/annoyed by flamboyance does not necessarily equate to homophobia. Homophobia, in my mind, is being uncomfortable with/taking a disliking to the sexual aspect of the homosexual person in question.


And passing anti-baggy pants laws in Amerika aren't a manifestation of racism either right?

You don't hate people of color, just their stereotypical mannerisms!?

[Zolken]

I might get restricted for saying this, but fuck it at least I'm honest. I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people. Every gay guy I know acts like a girl. And not a cool girl, but a spoiled ass *****y girl. I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool. The only cool gay person I know is my uncle, who acts like a normal ass person. I don't know, I'm just uncomfortable around the very flamboyant types so I don't hang out around them. I don't know if this makes me homophobic, and if it does, what should I do about it? Also, I realize it sounds like I'm stereotyping all gay people, but I don't know too many but the ones at my school I don't like at all.

Firstly, why even bring up the subject? Seriously, what heterosexual man is going to sit around thinking about homosexual men? .. or could it be we have a fairy that's afraid to fly.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Firstly, why even bring up the subject?
Because he knows it's a problem and he wants to work through it? Would you prefer it if he felt this way but pretended to be all PC?

Seriously, what heterosexual man is going to sit around thinking about homosexual men?
It's not like he's Jerry Falwell or Ted sodding Haggard. I don't think being aware of the fact that gay people exist makes you gay.

[ZeroNowhere]

But I think an important fact to consider is that in many cases those who come off as homophobic are also compensating for their uncertainty of their own sexuality. Sometimes they are closeted and scared into compensating.Oh, be quiet, the only good place for psychology is a toilet.


You don't hate people of color, just their stereotypical mannerisms!?Of course people hate stereotypical mannerisms and see them as bad, that's the general reason they become stereotypical mannerisms of the people in question. And that's also the general reason why they suck. For a general example, disliking theft doesn't translate into disliking Mexicans (unless one is to say that only Mexicans steal?) One could think that Mexicans steal, therefore stealing is bad, therefore it should be made illegal, which would be racist, but just 'stealing is bad' (and, by the way, it is completely irrelevant whether one thinks that this is accurate) is not. In the same way, one can dislike the way in which some people who are gay act (and perhaps even no heterosexuals, it doesn't really matter), or in which all gay men are said to act (thus making it a stereotype which one does not accept), without being anti-homosexual, let along 'homophobic'. One can dislike men who act like the whole 'macho' stereotype without being sexist against men, and so on.

Also, people of colour is a silly term, I do not know of anybody who is not 'of colour' (the case could only perhaps be made for somebody who was pure black, and I wouldn't be sure that said person exists).


Firstly, why even bring up the subject?Because he's curious about it, presumably. The more important question, perhaps, is 'why bring up the subject on Revleft?'


As for the latter statement; being repulsed by something and not participating in something are two different things.But surely there are many heterosexual men who don't only not participate in it, but would find doing it repulsive, and refuse to do so? That doesn't translate to, for example, finding it repulsive that homosexuals can fuck, and so on, it's just that one would not at all enjoy sex with a male.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

As for the latter statement; being repulsed by something and not participating in something are two different things.

I agree, I'm not repulsed by vaginas, I more so just seem to find them boring. They may not be for me but if someone else likes them that is their cup of tea.

[Small Geezer]

I think flamboyant gay people are fucking awesome.

"Oooh champagne makes me go all silly!".:lol:

[puke on cops]

I agree with Counterblast on this.

Consciousness is the antagonism between the thousands of social contructs that form our personality, or are forced upon us. Gender-roles are just a few of these many social constructs and to decide that you find it 'wrong' or irritating that someone of one specific biological sex should have grown up comfortably with the roles that we usually expect of the other sex smells of gender-policing.

[GregoryAButler]

I'm a partisan of gay and lesbian rights - but, I do understand your discomfort with flamboyance and *****yness.

Folks who act like that are really irritating, so I understand your discomfort with those guys.

Since you're cool with your uncle, who's gay but is, based on your account of him, a "normal ass person" who doesn't act all flamboyant and *****y, I do not think you're homophobic.

I intensely dislike flamboyance myself.

As for the gay guys who act *****y, I think it's a defense mechanism against all of the homophobia they've experienced, but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious.


I might get restricted for saying this, but fuck it at least I'm honest. I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people. Every gay guy I know acts like a girl. And not a cool girl, but a spoiled ass *****y girl. I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool. The only cool gay person I know is my uncle, who acts like a normal ass person. I don't know, I'm just uncomfortable around the very flamboyant types so I don't hang out around them. I don't know if this makes me homophobic, and if it does, what should I do about it? Also, I realize it sounds like I'm stereotyping all gay people, but I don't know too many but the ones at my school I don't like at all.

[pastradamus]

I'm a partisan of gay and lesbian rights - but, I do understand your discomfort with flamboyance and *****yness.

Folks who act like that are really irritating, so I understand your discomfort with those guys.

Since you're cool with your uncle, who's gay but is, based on your account of him, a "normal ass person" who doesn't act all flamboyant and *****y, I do not think you're homophobic.

I intensely dislike flamboyance myself.

As for the gay guys who act *****y, I think it's a defense mechanism against all of the homophobia they've experienced, but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

Spot on! "flamboyance!" thats the word I was looking for earlier.

[GregoryAButler]

Glad you liked the word!

And yes, Flamboyance can be very irritating and off putting.

[counterblast]

"Flamboyance" is merely a bold, "in your face" assertion of sexual identity.

I really find it disturbing that communists and anarchists are disgusted by gay people who don't fit into straight, sexist gender roles.

[Luís Henrique]

"Flamboyance" is merely a bold, "in your face" assertion of sexual identity.

I really find it disturbing that communists and anarchists are disgusted by gay people who don't fit into straight, sexist gender roles.

Well, I find "flamboyant" heterosexuals to be quite disagreeable, too.

Luís Henrique

[GregoryAButler]

I have no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people - and straights, for that matter - living their private sexual lives as they see fit, without shame or apology.

I do have a huge problem with obnoxious people who don't care about the feelings of others, and behave in an over the top, ridiculously theatrical way, pushing their private lives into your face even if you have absolutely no interest in what they do behind closed doors.

I have a problem with obnoxious people who go out of their way to be verbally abusive to others, and do not care who's feelings they hurt - and it matters not that this *****iness is a reaction to homophobic discrimination that they have suffered, because I find *****iness equally as irritating when it comes from straight men or straight women.


"Flamboyance" is merely a bold, "in your face" assertion of sexual identity.

I really find it disturbing that communists and anarchists are disgusted by gay people who don't fit into straight, sexist gender roles.

[The Bear]

i am homophobic, but i dont think it makes me less left

homosexuality has little to do with class struggle

as a matter of fact i dont support right for homosexuals to adopt kids

i think every kid has right to be born with both sex parents

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Do you not think that gays could be used as a scapegoat some time in the future to divert the working class from class struggle.

Or even that not excluding gay people may boost our numbers?

also why?

[nuisance]

i am homophobic, but i dont think it makes me less left

homosexuality has little to do with class struggle

as a matter of fact i dont support right for homosexuals to adopt kids

i think every kid has right to be born with both sex parents
If you equate 'left' with progression then yes, it does make you less 'left' to be homophobic, not only making you a complete loser. Also sexuality and gender roles has throughout history been used to curb class struggle- use as scapegoats diverting anger that should be shown towards the capitalist class. It's also important to add that class struggle is to emancipate the working class through the destruction of class society, and as the majority of homosexuals are working class, it is part of the class stuggle
So, to sum up, you deserve a kicking, fucking dick. Try wising up.

[puke on cops]

i am the CEO of a multi-national corporation, but i dont think it makes me less left

I have little to do with class struggle

as a matter of fact i dont support right for homosexuals to migrate

i think every kid has right to be born a white American protestant

*corrected*

[counterblast]

I have no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people - and straights, for that matter - living their private sexual lives as they see fit, without shame or apology.

I do have a huge problem with obnoxious people who don't care about the feelings of others, and behave in an over the top, ridiculously theatrical way, pushing their private lives into your face even if you have absolutely no interest in what they do behind closed doors.

I have a problem with obnoxious people who go out of their way to be verbally abusive to others, and do not care who's feelings they hurt - and it matters not that this *****iness is a reaction to homophobic discrimination that they have suffered, because I find *****iness equally as irritating when it comes from straight men or straight women.

A couple of things;

What designated sexuality as something that must be kept "private"?

Judeo-Christian religion with its glorification of self-denial, and capitalism with its commodification of pleasure, that's what.

You can reiterate your disgust with "over-the-top" sexual antics all day long; but it is simply illogical from a leftist stand point.


And nice strawman, but we're not talking about verbal abuse (or any type of coercive behavior). Abuse is abuse no matter who perpetrates it, and no one is arguing that point here. We're talking about gay men who act in ways Western society deems "feminine" or "flamboyant" and how certain members of RevLeft look down upon them.

Also, the fact that *****iness is even being thrown around in this topic as a synonym for "mean" or "demanding" is really problematic -- you're claiming to distance yourself from double standards by reinforcing them with your choice of adjectives.

[GregoryAButler]

So public sex is communist now?

That's news to me - guess I didn't get the memo!


A couple of things;

What designated sexuality as something that must be kept "private"?

Judeo-Christian religion with its glorification of self-denial, and capitalism with its commodification of pleasure, that's what.

You can reiterate your disgust with "over-the-top" sexual antics all day long; but it is simply illogical from a leftist stand point.


And nice strawman, but we're not talking about verbal abuse (or any type of coercive behavior). Abuse is abuse no matter who perpetrates it, and no one is arguing that point here. We're talking about gay men who act in ways Western society deems "feminine" or "flamboyant" and how certain members of RevLeft look down upon them.

Also, the fact that *****iness is even being thrown around in this topic as a synonym for "mean" or "demanding" is really problematic -- you're claiming to distance yourself from double standards by reinforcing them with your choice of adjectives.

[counterblast]

i am homophobic, but i dont think it makes me less left

homosexuality has little to do with class struggle

as a matter of fact i dont support right for homosexuals to adopt kids

i think every kid has right to be born with both sex parents

If it doesn't make you less left to want an all heterosexual revolution, then I guess it doesn't make you less left to liberate yourself and declare yourself dictator either?

[counterblast]

So public sex is communist now?

That's news to me - guess I didn't get the memo!

I didn't say it was communist.

Again, quit misquoting me.

I said the privatization and commodification of sex is capitalist and religious in nature.

Sex is a neutral entity.

[gorillafuck]

i am homophobic, but i dont think it makes me less left

homosexuality has little to do with class struggle

as a matter of fact i dont support right for homosexuals to adopt kids

i think every kid has right to be born with both sex parents
It does make you less left wing, and it means you support oppression.

[Collectivism]

Yes, you are VERY homophobic. To cure this illness you should live the gay lifestyle. All young males should be encouraged to experiment sexually with each other.

[pastradamus]

Do you not think that gays could be used as a scapegoat some time in the future to divert the working class from class struggle.


Absolutely, In America this has been going on for ages. They pit race against race and now Gay against straight. Divide and conquer my friend.

[pastradamus]

. All young males should be encouraged to experiment sexually with each other.

That says more about you than about him.

[Collectivism]

Yes. It says I am very open-minded and enjoy having sex with men.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yes but some people just dont want to and shouldn't be pressured into doing anything they don't want to.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Yes. It says I am very open-minded and enjoy having sex with men.

I would love to be as open minded as you and experiment with men. I do not desire to have sex with men so I guess that is my problem. Are you being serious?

[Led Zeppelin]

Collectivism was a racist/sexist/homophobic troll, he's been banned (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1537033&postcount=45).

[Jazzratt]

Anyone who is loud and happy irritates me because I'm a miserable bastard but it's no skin off my nose if anyone wants to be a flamboyant homosexual. I don't think in terms of disliking "flamboyant gays" for the same reason that I don't think in terms of hating "theiving gypsies"; these aren't behaviours unique to, or a function of being part of, a group of people and it is illogical to single them out. Anyway there's worse things to do than be flamboyant but I've never heard people say, for example, "I really hate tory(/republican/other conservative group) gays" or "I don't mind gay people, apart from the ones that throw bricks at my windows", these sound ridiculous for precisly the same reason talking about hating "flamboyant" gay people does.

[pastradamus]

Collectivism was a racist/sexist/homophobic troll, he's been banned (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1537033&postcount=45).

Good.

[GregoryAButler]

So, if you're saying that privatization of sex is capitalist what is the "communist" position on sex?

Are communists against sex being private?


I didn't say it was communist.

Again, quit misquoting me.

I said the privatization and commodification of sex is capitalist and religious in nature.

Sex is a neutral entity.

[puke on cops]

*Wonders why so few people are jumping down The Bears throat compared to if he was saying equally racist shit*

[ZeroNowhere]

So, if you're saying that privatization of sex is capitalist what is the "communist" position on sex?

Are communists against sex being private?No, it's just that being annoyed at somebody raving frequently about something which you are not interested in is illogical from a socialist standpoint.


If you equate 'left' with progression then yes, it does make you less 'left' to be homophobic, not only making you a complete loser.Not really, anti-homosexuals can be pretty decent people. People who find homosexuals scary are just pussies.

That can't end well, can it?


*Wonders why so few people are jumping down The Bears throat compared to if he was saying equally racist shit*
*Wonders why so few people are pointing out that POK's 'correction' of The Bear's post was unfunny shite and a waste of pixels*


Also, the fact that *****iness is even being thrown around in this topic as a synonym for "mean" or "demanding" is really problematicAssuming that it is being thrown around in this topic as a synonym for "mean" or "demanding", you are correct; '*****iness' is a noun.

[puke on cops]

"*Wonders why so few people are pointing out that POK's 'correction' of The Bear's post was unfunny shite and a waste of pixels*"


What the fucks your problem? The reason I said that remark was cos I'm annoyed at the twat. I was less trying to be funny and more trying to stress how much of a twat he's being.

If he said that in front of me, I would have honestly smacked the fucker in the jaw.

[Luís Henrique]

You can reiterate your disgust with "over-the-top" sexual antics all day long; but it is simply illogical from a leftist stand point.

Two points:

1. "Disgust" (actual disgust, not as in "I am disgusted by the utility theory of value") doesn't need to be logical. Everyone can be disgusted about anything.

2. "Being disgusted" doesn't entitle anyone to take or demand action against the source of said disgust.


We're talking about gay men who act in ways Western society deems "feminine" or "flamboyant"

Yup. It is perfectly legitimate to be disgusted by that. What is not legitimate is to deny them their rights (and acting "feminine" or "flamboyant" is one of such rights) based in such disgust.

Luís Henrique

[Jazzratt]

*Wonders why so few people are jumping down The Bears throat compared to if he was saying equally racist shit*

Mainly because he can no longer respond anyway, so it's a waste of time.

[kharacter]

Mainly because he can no longer respond anyway, so it's a waste of time.
in puke on cop's defense, her/his comment regarding The Bear was written before said person was restricted.

[Patchd]

I might get restricted for saying this, but fuck it at least I'm honest. I'm uncomfortable around the majority of gay people. Every gay guy I know acts like a girl. And not a cool girl, but a spoiled ass *****y girl. I don't have anything against gay people per se, and I know there a couple here and you guys are cool. The only cool gay person I know is my uncle, who acts like a normal ass person. I don't know, I'm just uncomfortable around the very flamboyant types so I don't hang out around them. I don't know if this makes me homophobic, and if it does, what should I do about it? Also, I realize it sounds like I'm stereotyping all gay people, but I don't know too many but the ones at my school I don't like at all.
You're not only homophobic but also sexist and for some reason seem to want to group 'camp' characteristics with the female gender, as if every woman acts the same way; likes shoes, perfume and have limp wrists etc.

It's an understandable reaction especially since we're consumed by it in society. Homosexuals are portrayed as 'effeminate' in the media, and anyone who doesn't act that way somehow surprises others when they inform them that they are homosexual. It's still a ridiculous and baseless assessment of homosexuality and homosexuals. It also props up that stupid macho bullshit that men are supposed to be men, whatever the fuck that means ... again.

[trinity42]

Jammoe: you have been nailing it here, so I come to this discussion knowing you have broken it down quite nicely.

I think there are a few things that have been said that need to be addressed quite simply.

"Homophobia is different than sexism": I totally disagree. I think the two are part and parcel of the same thing. Check out Suzanne Pharr's fantastic "Homophobia is a weapon of sexism" (google Suzanne Pharr and Homophobia is a weapon of sexism...since I am a n00b, I can't post the damn link) for a great read on the subject. Read that and then we can talk more about it, because I am not gonna break the whole text down here.

"It's ok to dislike the behavior. That doesn't make you homophobic.": Really? REALLY? Because I can't help but feel that the dislike of what is perceived as "feminine" characteristics (ask yourself to, in this culture, who has had the power to DEFINE feminine/masculine...it wasn't women and it sure wasn't gay people...you really have to dig into the power structure that set these false binaries in place), is simply a whole lotta sexism/homophobia wrapped up in a dismissive package disguised as something seemingly safe and nothing more than a personal behavioral preference. To the OP (and to many of the subsequent posters): perhaps some serious thought into WHY those "behaviors" bother you would be useful. Is it a personal preference? Or is it one based on your notions of normality and gender? Who made up those definitions of "normal" and "other"? Why do you accept them as such?

Also, I can say from experience that in the high school years, many gay people finding their identity cling first to obvious stereotypes because they are still finding themselves. In some ways it's just not knowing HOW to be who they are. In some ways, it's a defense mechanism; a big "FUCK YOU" to anyone who wouldn't accept them for who they are by displaying it as openly and loudly as possible. When I was younger, being obnoxious about my sexuality or just myself was an easy way to build a wall to keep out those who I knew would never accept me. It was clumsy, and it WAS obnoxious, but I have to say: it worked.

There is some good discussion going on here, but I fear there is also a lot of clinging to ideas of "I just don't like it" (whatever it is), instead of a thoughtful analysis of one's own behaviors. It's hard to really dig into your own prejudices and fears; sometimes you may not like what you find. But the only way to fix it, is acknowledge it's broken and figure out WHY.

[Il Medico]

"Flamboyance" is merely a bold, "in your face" assertion of sexual identity.

I really find it disturbing that communists and anarchists are disgusted by gay people who don't fit into straight, sexist gender roles.

I think there is a point that you may be missing. The reason that the over the top flamboyant homosexuals can be annoying is because, in most cases this behavior is fake. It is a perpetuation of the cultural stereotypes of homosexuals by mainstream culture. Many people have some natural flamboyance to them (myself being a case in point), but being gay/Bi doesn't make you anymore flamboyant then anyone else. What in my opinion is the root of the over the top flamboyance of some is attempting to fit in. Gay/bi people, especially young ones have always found themselves surrounded by a homophobic and non accepting community. many try to conform their personalities and behavior to this society. However, when some come out, the reverse happens. Having found an accepting community, they feel a need to 100% conform to this community. They perpetuate what they believe to be the norms of the LGBT community. These are provided to them by mainstream culture and they then cling to the homophobic stereotypes that they believe makes them a part of something. These stereotypes that they cling to are annoying because they are negative and meant to belittle the LGBT community, make us seem as outsiders, not able to be part of the greater community. This is one of the many divides that split the working class and serve the bourgeois. I think you mistake others annoyance or disgust at the perpetuation of this negative stereotype as annoyance and disgust of the group the stereotype is against.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I do have a huge problem with obnoxious people who don't care about the feelings of others, and behave in an over the top, ridiculously theatrical way, pushing their private lives into your face even if you have absolutely no interest in what they do behind closed doors.

Notice how many straight people do the same thing on the other side of the coin without even noticing that they are doing it. Just because their self-expression is within the dominant societal norms of a more dominant portion of the population makes it all better?

Creating norms pertaining to harmless self-expression sounds like another attempt to control those who don't fit them.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

i am homophobic, but i dont think it makes me less left

homosexuality has little to do with class struggle

as a matter of fact i dont support right for homosexuals to adopt kids

i think every kid has right to be born with both sex parents

I wish Sylvia Ray Rivera would throw a bottle at you.

[Orange Juche]

Don't worry about it. You even said yourself that your uncle acts normal and hes gay.

Normal? So acting outside the bounds of what is typically considered general heterosexual cultural behavior is abnormal?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Normal? So acting outside the bounds of what is typically considered general heterosexual cultural behavior is abnormal?
TBF, without wanting to attach any stigma to it, I think it is reasonable, even tautologous, to say that behaviour outside of cultural norms is not normal.

[Manifesto]

Normal? So acting outside the bounds of what is typically considered general heterosexual cultural behavior is abnormal?
I wasn't saying that gay people are not normal and that general heterosexual cultural behavior is weird.

[StalinFanboy]

Normal? So acting outside the bounds of what is typically considered general heterosexual cultural behavior is abnormal?
He would be correct...


conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular