next »

[good dawg!]

From another queer poster:  Thank you.

[Jeffrey Deutsch]

@SLAC wrote:

> "Dare I say it, perhaps even a little tolerance could be in
> order here, too"
>
> Tolerance for bigoted and inappropriate language?  You have got
> to be kidding me!  To think or suggest that "how gay" is now as
> meaningless as German Measles and therefore should be tolerated
> is stunning.

You know, perhaps more people would be receptive to your ideas of greater civility, if in turn you would respect those of others.

Some of us, including yours truly, have a problem with the tone displayed in your response, and particularly with such things as "You have got to be kidding me!" and characterizing with obvious disdain others' thoughts and suggestions as "stunning" - while providing no reasons for your response.

You give no indication of having considered my point of view with an open mind - which I thought was academe's strength, if not raison d'etre. I wonder how you would feel about one of your students' addressing another that way (assuming s/he did not add "That's so gay!").

You said you are gay. No doubt you have encountered more than enough bigotry and discrimination, if not outright gay-bashing, to make such a phrase as "that's so gay" pale in comparison.

But while you demand that your students accept homosexuality, which many of them may actually believe to be downright weird if not a sin and an abomination, you refuse to accept casual phrases which so much as include the word "gay" in any other than a totally favorable context. In fact, such phrases may not even be used with intent to say anything about homosexuality, per se, but may simply be an evolution (and not for the first time) in the colloquial meaning of the term. Still, you insist on branding such speech as bigoted, right in the middle of your crusade for tolerance.

Statements and demands like yours contribute to academe's bad reputation among parts of U.S. society. In particular, many reasonable and intelligent Americans consider many actions taken therein to be parochial, petty, narrow-minded, hypocritical, censorious and dictatorial.

If you want support outside (or even throughout) the ivory tower, you should try harder to combat such perceptions.

Jeff Deutsch

[@SLAC]

Indeed, THANK YOU!

Some of the responses on here are proof positive of the need to enlighten students as to the inappropriateness of their language.  I’m now convinced more than ever.  There's also an irony in the posts from people who somehow think "how gay" is as innocuous as German Measles---those poor repressed Germans!---they clearly live in some snow globe where they are blind to the realities of society.  Do they even see the absurdity of asking for tolerance for intolerance?  No, they ask for “open mindedness”!

[ghey 6.0]

thank you for a very good post!

personally i would not use the word "gay" or similar in a classroom, unless i know better what different type of people compose the class - and they in turn do not know me well enough to understand the language, humor etc i use with closer friends.

nonetheless, i find the upset emotion displayed by the OP to be somewhat misguided, and have not seen any convincing reason in this discussion to change my mind.

there are much, much better things to do if one wants to fight bigotry than cracking down on the usage of language rather than the actual attitudes that created and let loose bigoted terms. pretending that people are incapable of using the same word in an endless number of ways is just awkward -- censoring words such as "gay" would do no more for real homophobia than would replacing "women" with "womyn" do for breaking down patriarchy.



Jeffrey Deutsch wrote:

> You know, perhaps more people would be receptive to your ideas
> of greater civility, if in turn you would respect those of
> others.
>
> Some of us, including yours truly, have a problem with the tone
> displayed in your response, and particularly with such things
> as "You have got to be kidding me!" and characterizing with
> obvious disdain others' thoughts and suggestions as "stunning"
> - while providing no reasons for your response.
>
> You give no indication of having considered my point of view
> with an open mind - which I thought was academe's strength, if
> not raison d'etre. I wonder how you would feel about one
> of your students' addressing another that way (assuming s/he
> did not add "That's so gay!").
>
> You said you are gay. No doubt you have encountered more than
> enough bigotry and discrimination, if not outright gay-bashing,
> to make such a phrase as "that's so gay" pale in comparison.
>
> But while you demand that your students accept homosexuality,
> which many of them may actually believe to be downright weird
> if not a sin and an abomination, you refuse to accept casual
> phrases which so much as include the word "gay" in any other
> than a totally favorable context. In fact, such phrases may not
> even be used with intent to say anything about homosexuality,
> per se, but may simply be an evolution (and not for the first
> time) in the colloquial meaning of the term. Still, you insist
> on branding such speech as bigoted, right in the middle of your
> crusade for tolerance.
>
> Statements and demands like yours contribute to academe's bad
> reputation among parts of U.S. society. In particular, many
> reasonable and intelligent Americans consider many actions
> taken therein to be parochial, petty, narrow-minded,
> hypocritical, censorious and dictatorial.
>
> If you want support outside (or even throughout) the ivory
> tower, you should try harder to combat such perceptions.
>
> Jeff Deutsch

[CogNeuroChick]

No, Ms. C said, "Among the terms I single out for derision are "gay," "***," "blond," "woman," "pussy," and anything racially or ethnically oriented."

It is not clear from her paragraph or her sentence whether she derided the use of the word or the word itself, especially because "gay" and "woman" do not share the same properties as "***," "blonde," and "pussy."  "Gay" and "woman" are not inherently derogatory terms.  ("Blonde" is debatable.)  You should see how this could be unclear.