I'm No Bigot, But….
A little while back my sister forwarded to me yet another of those lists of philosophical observations — typically reactionary attitudes told in the form of jokes with bad timing and worse punch-lines — this one attributed to Andy Rooney. (It's urban legend, of course.) Among it's pithy comments was this gem:
I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it's not a phobia, it's an opinion.
I wrote back with this comment:
Sorry, I can't stomach reactionaries who think homophobia is just an opinion.
To which my sister, ever sensible and even-tempered, responded with
Ok, maybe I have the wrong definition of homophobia. I thought it related to people who were "afraid" of homosexuality or some such thing. In that case, wouldn't it be an opinion?
and to whom, therefore, I wrote the following letter. I don't think she'll mind if I share.
From the roots: "fear of homosexuality". More generally in the vernacular it's used to describe irrational, outlandish, inexplicable, or disproportionate reaction to anything to do with homosexuality.
It's quite common for people with homophobic inclinations to hide behind statements like "I'm not *afraid* of homosexuals, I just think it's disgusting."
Think for a minute, say, about people who don't like chocolate ice cream. Generally they will avoid eating it, perhaps say "I don't care for it" if necessary, but rarely do they advocate making it illegal and attacking people who eat it while claiming they have nothing against chocolate ice cream but it's disgusting.
People who don't care about homosexuality really shouldn't care, rather than caring over much as homophobes do, sometimes to the point of obsession. Have you ever wondered why all these evangelical preachers seem so interested in something that they really should give rather little time to, if they care about it as little as they claim.
On the face of it, remarks like those attributed to Mr. Rooney about "the only real discrimination" or not really being "afraid of homosexuals", are clues akin to "but some of my best friends are…." — innocuous on the surface but usually masking suppressed racism or homophobia. In this case, with the pseudo-Rooney, it's all reactionary politics dressed up to sound friendly and inoffensive in an attempt to get readers to agree without thinking about it, and hoping to gain a little prestige by pretending to have been said by Andy Rooney. As I said, people who claim not to care one way or the other really, really shouldn't care one way or the other or else they're hiding something.
You hear it a lot in the marriage "debate", that "I have nothing against homosexuals, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married." Press that "opinion" to a conclusion and you'll find that the speaker has plenty of unresolved issues about homosexuals. Remember "I have nothing against black people, I just don't want one to marry my daughter?" Not particularly alarming at the time — to white people, at least — doesn't seem unreasonable, but it's still racist, and it's used to paper over those quite unreasonable fears and make the speaker seem ever so reasonable about it.
So much political discussion today — maybe it's always been true — is coded in these phrases meant to be understood by fellow travelers for what they are but seem superficially reasonable. Listen carefully to the "debate" about immigration "reform", which really has very little to do with reforming immigration policy but quite a bit to do with rather hysterical xenophobia. Replacing rational discourse with emotional manipulation is a good way to get people like George W. Bush elected — he certainly wouldn't get a majority if the entire electorate responded to what he actually thought (to the extent, of course, that he thinks).
So, when people go out of their way to be reasonable about homosexuals and tell you how little it matters to them, you might wonder why they brought it up in the first place.
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Monday, 30 July 2007 at 23.56
Permalink
It seems to me those who say they hold the opinion homosexuality is wrong are focused entirely on the "sexual" part of the term "sexual orientation." IOW, focused on sexual activities. I mention that important distinction because, in my understanding of these things, the crux of hetero- or homosexuality is romantic attraction, which in most circumstances precedes sexual activity but doesn't require sexual activity.
Along those lines, I think it's entirely possible for two low-sex-drive or even asexual individuals to bond romantically with little or no sexual activity resulting. Notice that I didn't specify hetero- or homosexual. That's because it doesn't matter; the same thing applies, regardless.
So, based on my understanding, holding the opinion homosexuality is wrong makes about as much sense as holding the opinion sexuality is wrong — a psychological disability less rare in our society than many people realize.
Down that road lie opinions that the human body is dirty (in a sexual sense), rainy days are wrong, gravity is unforgivably problematic (especially on moving days) and lightning strikes are downright evil!
Regarding phobias, my understanding is that extreme and irrational fear and loathing mark the difference between a phobic response and simple anxiety or dislike. "Extreme" signifies a reflexive, unreasoning emotional and physical response, such as the person's "skin crawls" or "stomach turns" or they break out in a cold sweat.
That another person's sexual orientation would cause such a condition seems inconceivable, absent being deliberately taunted with an exhibition of overt sexual acts — a mighty unlikely scenario.
on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 at 08.57
Permalink
I run into this line as well.
there is a problem with the word "homophobia" which allows the idjits to claim that they're not. It's the analogy to "arachnophobia" or "agoraphobia" or "herpetophobia". They have mental pictures of people responding like housewives in a 60s sitcom (up on the chair, yelling "eek! a mouse!", or someone curled up in a chair in a fetal position, trying to push themselves further into the upholstery to avoid whatever the nasty object is, or staggering to the bathroom in a cold sweat and nauseous at the prospect of going into a crowd. They don't have those stereotypical "phobic" reactions to homos, so they self-diagnose as "I'm not homophobic". They see "phobos" as "afraid" and "I'm not afraid of homosexuals", and so neatly sidestep the shoe rather than wear it, even hough you and I might think it fits.
(can I mangle any more metaphors?)
For people like that I prefer the term "heterosexist"; those who think that heterosexuals are automatically better than homos, just as sexists feel (usually) men are automatically better than women.
and when one analyses the way they categorise "some of their best friends", the heterosexist label sticks, no matter how much they stand on a chair and squeal that they're not hompoPHOBIC.
it's unfortunate, but that's the way our language has evolved. so I preferentially use "heterosexist" in lieu of "homophobic".
on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 at 11.30
Permalink
SW, your comments hit several targets quite accurately. Whatever "romantic attraction" might be, it can stand in for what is clearly the component of attraction that goes beyond the merely sexual — and it's as true of homosexuals as of heterosexuals, that there's sexual attraction and then there's romantic attraction. Some people are forever confounded by the notion that young people with no sexual experience might claim to know that they're gay or lesbian, but there's really no mystery to it at all.
Sometimes I almost think that calling homophobia a "phobia" in any clinical sense must be hyperbolic, but then along comes another bible-thumping televangelist fretting loudly that some homosexuals someplace might be enjoying their life, and I think perhaps it's no exaggeration. I am forever confounded by how greatly such people overreact to this particular "sin".
Calling it an "opinion", of course, is just an attempt to deflect criticism from an unacceptable attitude, hoping that the notion that all opinions are equally valid really makes sense. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm with you in wanting to avoid any notion that the body is a dirty nasty thing, and I wouldn't mind promoting the idea that sex can be enjoyable and healthful.
So, Chris, it strikes me these days as highly ironic when homophobes claim, rather hysterically, that they're not afraid of homosexuals, since their response is so outlandish that it's clear that they're deeply afraid of homosexuality for some reason. Of course, the received wisdom in our community is that those most afraid are afraid because they can't see the homosexuality clearly enough to know that it doesn't encompass them which, in turn, they find exceedingly frightening because of the pressure of social mores. It's always seemed such a glib idea, but so frequently turns out true anyway.