Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
Getting hit hard by off-hand expression of contempt
Mikaela:
Hmmmm........going back to the first post here and the quote that upset me so for a moment, the reason why it upset me so much, I think, was its completely "offhand" nature. The ease with which it was spoken, - the speaker obviously feeling certain that everyone in their right mind would get his point and share his views. He wasn't trying to be controversial, he wasn't aware of being controversial; - he was just trying to give an clear and honest description. Quite evidently he was voicing something he must have been thinking back in 1945, and he hadn't changed his mindset one bit since then.
It was a cold blast from the past, and no mistake. A past that was less than 10 years before BBM lets the murder of Earl occur. As such it sure sent chills down my spine.
I don't put that much weight on this one man not having changed his views over the long years - but having thought it over I disagree with this:
--- Quote --- If the sequence was cut, there'd be no issue; I think it may be better to put forth information as unpleasant as anyone may take it in order to know what is going on. I personally find the comment disagreeable, but in the context of things, it falls way down my list of concerns. but, if it was cut from the final edit, no one would know how some people use 'weakling and sissy' as something related to homosexuality ..
--- End quote ---
I think the sequence should have been cut. The program was not at all about people's views on homosexuality (nor did it see to it that a counter-opinion was voiced.) It let someone show contempt for a truly contemptible person by means of embracing and broadcasting prejudice against a whole group of people, seeming to assume this prejudice would be commonly shared and understood by the viewers. That was an error of judgement on BBC's part.
That present-day error also served to make the whole thing hit me hard. Because I don't think you see very often, if at all, opinions like that without the speaker to some extent being aware that he is controversial. And provocative. That's what almost anyone'd be especially aiming for, saying something like that today. Certainly all these talk show hosts are very aware of the controvercy - that's what they're building on, that's why they keeop harping on the same stale jokes. And people such as conservative Christian anti-gay preachers may completely believe their own prejudiced statements with a fervour for all I know, but they also know that there are many that oppose them. That's why they bother to spend so much time and loud voice on the issue. And so forth. In general, I think that most anti-gay sentiments in RL, including some instances mentioned in this thread, originate with people who were and are entirely aware that their attitude isn't a commonly held view. They build bellingerence on knowing that their views are being contested, may be becoming rare, and that there's controvercy and disagreement about.
So, in my long and meandering way getting to the point at last. ::) This is what I am not used to encountering in this day and age: People with prejudices against homosexuality who are completely oblivious to the fact that theirs is by no means a commonly shared and "the only possible" view. In that sense, I think the world has moved ahead quite a bit. And so.... yes, any completely offhand expression of contempt in a contemporary TV program hits all the harder. But from the discussion in this thread I get the impression that such offhand remarks and oblivious attitudes may still be more common than I thought.... I'd like to hear some more opinions on that, if possible.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Mikaela on May 17, 2007, 05:30:08 pm --- But from the discussion in this thread I get the impression that such offhand remarks and oblivious attitudes may still be more common than I thought.... I'd like to hear some more opinions on that, if possible.
--- End quote ---
I think we're to the point that most people realize that openly homophobic remarks are socially unacceptable. Many straight people undoubtedly still harbor homophobic views, and no doubt say homophobic things among friends or when they know their audience won't mind. But most are careful enough not to say anything blatantly homophobic in public (though they haven't gotten past saying things that are mildly or jokingly homophobic -- all the BBM jokes are one huge example). That's why there was such hubbub over Ann Coulter's calling John Edwards the f-word, or that guy on Grey's anatomy calling his costar that same slur.
I think the cultural awareness of homophobia, in this country anyway, is about 10 to 20 years behind awareness of racism. There are STILL people who make racist remarks in private, of course. But almost everybody has learned that saying anything openly racist is a big taboo, and when speaking publicly or in unfamiliar groups they know they have to be very careful. I think people are just now understanding they have to be careful about making homophobic remarks, as well. And, as with racism, there are a few unenlightened stragglers like the guy you saw, Mikaela, who just don't get it yet.
Does that make sense?
One possibly good thing is, I think attitudes may follow speech. That is, first people realize that the remarks are no-nos. They are still wildly racist/homophobic/sexist, but they know better than to say so out loud to people they don't know well. Eventually, it sinks in that the remarks are no-nos because not just the words but the attitudes themselves are widely considered unacceptable. And once they understand that, and start to be conscious of the fact that their prejudices are Neanderthal, their attitudes can start to change.
Brown Eyes:
Hi Mikaela,
I just discovered this very thought provoking thread! Thanks for starting it. :) Well, the statement you describe is certainly very disheartening. And, I agree with you that the off handed nature of it and the fact that the BBC left it in is very upsetting.
And, I agree with Katherine about the use of language when it comes to racism, sexism and homophobia.
--- Quote from: ineedcrayons on May 17, 2007, 07:23:11 pm ---I think the cultural awareness of homophobia, in this country anyway, is about 10 to 20 years behind awareness of racism. There are STILL people who make racist remarks in private, of course. But almost everybody has learned that saying anything openly racist is a big taboo, and when speaking publicly or in unfamiliar groups they know they have to be very careful. I think people are just now understanding they have to be careful about making homophobic remarks, as well. And, as with racism, there are a few unenlightened stragglers like the guy you saw, Mikaela, who just don't get it yet.
Does that make sense?
One possibly good thing is, I think attitudes may follow speech. That is, first people realize that the remarks are no-nos. They are still wildly racist/homophobic/sexist, but they know better than to say so out loud to people they don't know well. Eventually, it sinks in that the remarks are no-nos because not just the words but the attitudes themselves are widely considered unacceptable. And once they understand that, and start to be conscious of the fact that their prejudices are Neanderthal, their attitudes can start to change.
--- End quote ---
I know a lot and I mean *a lot* of people who still very freely say things like "that's so gay" meaning something like "that's so stupid or silly." I think there are large segments of the population that still feel pretty comfortable making homophobic remarks... and maybe some (perhaps like the guy Mikaela saw in the documentary) who hardly even are aware of what they're saying. My sense and hope, though, is that this is all changing. I hope that baby-step by baby-step people are becoming much more sensitive to the words that come out of their mouths. Everything from the Michael Richards racist rant to the Don Imus sexism... and yes Coulter's homophobic language that all got quite a lot of analysis in mainstream media (and all were widely condemned by many/ most) might have the cumulative impact of raising a level of awareness when it comes to language.
ednbarby:
I agree, Amanda. And I'm, God help me, actually grateful to Ann Coulter for making such a horse's ass (she has a horse's face - might as well have an ass to match, after all) of herself with that whole "John Edwards is a fag" bit. Her cronies actually took a breath and went "Ew." Now many of them are distancing themselves from her like crazy. So, thank you, Ann. You did more for our cause by just being your usual obnoxious, loathesome self than a year of talks by Annie P. and Judy Shepard could have ever accomplished. Those guys are just preachin' to the choir, after all (though power to 'em - they do make a difference). But you - you do it just by showing how hateful your "thoughts" really are.
Mikaela:
I googled "Coulter and Edwards" to find out what was going on ( I haven't seen this mentioned in any news stories over here, neither on TV nor printed, - so I didn't know about this.) Useful as background info, in a horribly weird way, and sadly completely appropriate to the topic of this thread. In case there are other Europeans similarly in the dark, here's a site that has the background story in brief plus a clip of the statement. Seems the lady is actually trying to make a joke to please her in-crowd? How totally sad and embarrassing. I don't know, even in the US I really wouldn't have expected to hear something like that pass for public political commentary outside the ranks of the KKK. The worst thing is that the (obviously somewhat shocked) crowd actually cheers. :-\
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version