|
|
Post by amyghost on May 13, 2019 12:44:26 GMT
It's something of a human mania to want to compartmentalize oneself, and as per usual, the US has managed to hone a common mania into some sort of insane art form. I wish we could get past the eagerness to paste labels on ourselves and just be ourselves; but it seems as if anytime humans might just begin making a few tentative steps towards evolving a society that would allow this, a self-appointed 'goon squad' (apt term) charges in and sets about busily undoing even the incremental progress in that direction by re-upping the labeling gambit to about the power of a thousand.
Will we ever get over this? Tune in next week for the not-so-thrilling, and probably entirely predictable answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 13, 2019 14:10:01 GMT
It's something of a human mania to want to compartmentalize oneself, and as per usual, the US has managed to hone a common mania into some sort of insane art form. I wish we could get past the eagerness to paste labels on ourselves and just be ourselves; but it seems as if anytime humans might just begin making a few tentative steps towards evolving a society that would allow this, a self-appointed 'goon squad' (apt term) charges in and sets about busily undoing even the incremental progress in that direction by re-upping the labeling gambit to about the power of a thousand. Will we ever get over this? Tune in next week for the not-so-thrilling, and probably entirely predictable answer. That's just fine, and anyone so motivated is entirely free to do so. As are those who feel it natural and comfortable associating themselves with those with whom they find commonality. They may do so for purely social reasons, for support and protection and/or political or other purposes. All these are especially true of the gay community (a term I'll employ for convenience), rather ironically as a reaction to having first been singled out by others for ostracization, punitive legislation and worse (talk about "goon squads"). And all those conditions continue to exist, to one degree or another, in more than merely vestigial form. What's being objected to in this thread is symptomatic of only that which tends to garner the most attention and, therefore, criticism. The so-called gay community as I have known it for nearly a half-century consists, for the most part, of those doing exactly as you suggest: simply being ourselves and living our lives according to our own lights.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 13, 2019 15:26:41 GMT
... Stop stereotyping your own people. What I mean by that is they assume all gay men are feminine, sassy, fasion, makeup queers. By promoting your community that way, you alienate young boys who love sports, fishing, boxing, hunting, and are manly. So what happens is you have a 16 year old boy who is a jock, masculine, loves everything a 'straight' boy likes but is homosexual. So they hide who they are because they don't want to associate with 'that' persona. Same goes for lesbians. There are feminine lipstick lesbians who love feminine things, girly magazines, etc... But it's always perceived as macho Butch lesbos. So you end up breeding a culture of self loathing gays who hide in the closet, bully the stereotype gays and even get married but secretly hate their life. If gays would be portrayed as regular guys who love sports and hunt/fish, can be macho too just attracted to guys, then it seems more normal. Same for feminine lesbians. The problem is, when you watch something for gay people it's all about queer guys who talk and act like women. It's off putting for some gay guys because they don't Identity with it. Just a thought I had while hearing a gay kid talk about being bullied by a jock and finding out later in life he himself was gay and that's why he bullied him. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 13, 2019 15:27:39 GMT
I know gay men who don't adhere to stereotypes that's not everyone nor should that be.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 14, 2019 13:20:57 GMT
It's something of a human mania to want to compartmentalize oneself, and as per usual, the US has managed to hone a common mania into some sort of insane art form. I wish we could get past the eagerness to paste labels on ourselves and just be ourselves; but it seems as if anytime humans might just begin making a few tentative steps towards evolving a society that would allow this, a self-appointed 'goon squad' (apt term) charges in and sets about busily undoing even the incremental progress in that direction by re-upping the labeling gambit to about the power of a thousand. Will we ever get over this? Tune in next week for the not-so-thrilling, and probably entirely predictable answer. That's just fine, and anyone so motivated is entirely free to do so. As are those who feel it natural and comfortable associating themselves with those with whom they find commonality. They may do so for purely social reasons, for support and protection and/or political or other purposes. All these are especially true of the gay community (a term I'll employ for convenience), rather ironically as a reaction to having first been singled out by others for ostracization, punitive legislation and worse (talk about "goon squads"). And all those conditions continue to exist, to one degree or another, in more than merely vestigial form. What's being objected to in this thread is symptomatic of only that which tends to garner the most attention and, therefore, criticism. The so-called gay community as I have known it for nearly a half-century consists, for the most part, of those doing exactly as you suggest: simply being ourselves and living our lives according to our own lights. I respect that answer, and can sympathize fully with what engenders the need to form common cause and common society amongst those who have experienced the degree of ostracization and outright threat from the larger culture that homosexuals face. What concerns me, and what I think is a running link between all groups who band together in this way (based on any and all of the usual stigmata--race, faith, sexual orientation, gender; along with a thousand other markers I don't have space to list here, as humans also have a horribly nasty knack of letting their innate herd instinct go into overdrive in repelling any and all who don't fit the herd's templates, no matter on what specious grounds the dominant herd can concoct)--is the tendency in those groups to then recreate, in microcosm, precisely the same forms of herding and shunning that occur in the larger mass; which once again are based in no small measure on the labels one chooses to wear and display to others, and the desire to pigeonhole oneself into an (apparently) immutable category. The infighting that looks now to be taking place among the members of the LGBTQ's over who gets to fit and who doesn't is a clear reflection of the ever-present danger that becomes an inherent part of this, and can come uncomfortably close to group-think; and that pattern is being repeated ad infinitum inside of other so-called 'minority' groups. In short, these splinterings have too often the effect of mirroring the surrounding ugly prejudices of the mainstream, and maybe in part even magnifying them. I don't know how that part of the equation is to be overcome; I only feel that, by creating a climate where the need to label and to mass together for support or protection becomes less immediately critical, can some sort of social healing begin. Becoming a smaller version of the larger problem only ends, it too often seems, by causing the larger problem to become greater and more intransigent than even before. I could be utterly wrong about this--likely I am--and as I said, I don't really have an answer for how to bring about this sort of paradigm shift; this is all just one moose's opinionated ramblings, born out of a sense of concern with what the society that seems only to be able to function as a set of fractured in-groups (which fracture off into ever more esoteric in-groups within themselves) may yield in the future, or how it will even continue to operate in any sort of cohesive manner. Greater inclusion would seem to be the only answer around this, and to achieve that, it may be necessary to dispense with some of the ultra-refined self defining that's going on, tempting though it is on both emotional and purely rational reasons on which it's based.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 14, 2019 20:11:56 GMT
That's just fine, and anyone so motivated is entirely free to do so. As are those who feel it natural and comfortable associating themselves with those with whom they find commonality. They may do so for purely social reasons, for support and protection and/or political or other purposes. All these are especially true of the gay community (a term I'll employ for convenience), rather ironically as a reaction to having first been singled out by others for ostracization, punitive legislation and worse (talk about "goon squads"). And all those conditions continue to exist, to one degree or another, in more than merely vestigial form. What's being objected to in this thread is symptomatic of only that which tends to garner the most attention and, therefore, criticism. The so-called gay community as I have known it for nearly a half-century consists, for the most part, of those doing exactly as you suggest: simply being ourselves and living our lives according to our own lights. I respect that answer, and can sympathize fully with what engenders the need to form common cause and common society amongst those who have experienced the degree of ostracization and outright threat from the larger culture that homosexuals face. What concerns me, and what I think is a running link between all groups who band together in this way (based on any and all of the usual stigmata--race, faith, sexual orientation, gender; along with a thousand other markers I don't have space to list here, as humans also have a horribly nasty knack of letting their innate herd instinct go into overdrive in repelling any and all who don't fit the herd's templates, no matter on what specious grounds the dominant herd can concoct)--is the tendency in those groups to then recreate, in microcosm, precisely the same forms of herding and shunning that occur in the larger mass; which once again are based in no small measure on the labels one chooses to wear and display to others, and the desire to pigeonhole oneself into an (apparently) immutable category. The infighting that looks now to be taking place among the members of the LGBTQ's over who gets to fit and who doesn't is a clear reflection of the ever-present danger that becomes an inherent part of this, and can come uncomfortably close to group-think; and that pattern is being repeated ad infinitum inside of other so-called 'minority' groups. In short, these splinterings have too often the effect of mirroring the surrounding ugly prejudices of the mainstream, and maybe in part even magnifying them. I don't know how that part of the equation is to be overcome; I only feel that, by creating a climate where the need to label and to mass together for support or protection becomes less immediately critical, can some sort of social healing begin. Becoming a smaller version of the larger problem only ends, it too often seems, by causing the larger problem to become greater and more intransigent than even before. I could be utterly wrong about this--likely I am--and as I said, I don't really have an answer for how to bring about this sort of paradigm shift; this is all just one moose's opinionated ramblings, born out of a sense of concern with what the society that seems only to be able to function as a set of fractured in-groups (which fracture off into ever more esoteric in-groups within themselves) may yield in the future, or how it will even continue to operate in any sort of cohesive manner. Greater inclusion would seem to be the only answer around this, and to achieve that, it may be necessary to dispense with some of the ultra-refined self defining that's going on, tempting though it is on both emotional and purely rational reasons on which it's based. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and while I feel that what you describe represents only the most vocal and visible viewpoints, there's truth in everything you observe. In the end, it may be that those with axes to grind, engaging in that kind of infighting, fracturing, shunning and so forth, are simply exercising what, to them, entails being themselves. The rest of us can reject it at will, which you're freely doing, although it represents an age-old conflict around which the dust will likely never settle, and of which the OP itself is an example in its suggestion that any segment of society should behave in certain ways in order to please another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 14, 2019 20:49:03 GMT
... Stop stereotyping your own people. What I mean by that is they assume all gay men are feminine, sassy, fasion, makeup queers. By promoting your community that way, you alienate young boys who love sports, fishing, boxing, hunting, and are manly. So what happens is you have a 16 year old boy who is a jock, masculine, loves everything a 'straight' boy likes but is homosexual. So they hide who they are because they don't want to associate with 'that' persona. Same goes for lesbians. There are feminine lipstick lesbians who love feminine things, girly magazines, etc... But it's always perceived as macho Butch lesbos. So you end up breeding a culture of self loathing gays who hide in the closet, bully the stereotype gays and even get married but secretly hate their life. If gays would be portrayed as regular guys who love sports and hunt/fish, can be macho too just attracted to guys, then it seems more normal. Same for feminine lesbians. The problem is, when you watch something for gay people it's all about queer guys who talk and act like women. It's off putting for some gay guys because they don't Identity with it. Just a thought I had while hearing a gay kid talk about being bullied by a jock and finding out later in life he himself was gay and that's why he bullied him. You haven't participated in nearly a week on this thread you began, but I'm compelled to point out a few items. It took women over 70 years to secure the national right to suffrage. Official recognition of the civil rights of African Americans took a century. Even on the right to interracial marriage, it was 20 years before public opinion caught up with judicial opinion. Marriage equality was the first U.S. civil rights issue on which public opinion was ahead of a judicial ruling by years. And while there's always room for more progress and improvement, gay Americans have done pretty well by comparison in the 50 years since issues surrounding our rights first gained national attention. There will always be those who reject us outright out of pure blind prejudice, or will fixate on unimportant matters like mannerisms, fashions or personalities, but we've managed to be taken pretty seriously where it counts, by serious people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 15, 2019 4:20:25 GMT
That's just fine, and anyone so motivated is entirely free to do so. As are those who feel it natural and comfortable associating themselves with those with whom they find commonality. They may do so for purely social reasons, for support and protection and/or political or other purposes. All these are especially true of the gay community (a term I'll employ for convenience), rather ironically as a reaction to having first been singled out by others for ostracization, punitive legislation and worse (talk about "goon squads"). And all those conditions continue to exist, to one degree or another, in more than merely vestigial form. What's being objected to in this thread is symptomatic of only that which tends to garner the most attention and, therefore, criticism. The so-called gay community as I have known it for nearly a half-century consists, for the most part, of those doing exactly as you suggest: simply being ourselves and living our lives according to our own lights. I respect that answer, and can sympathize fully with what engenders the need to form common cause and common society amongst those who have experienced the degree of ostracization and outright threat from the larger culture that homosexuals face. What concerns me, and what I think is a running link between all groups who band together in this way (based on any and all of the usual stigmata--race, faith, sexual orientation, gender; along with a thousand other markers I don't have space to list here, as humans also have a horribly nasty knack of letting their innate herd instinct go into overdrive in repelling any and all who don't fit the herd's templates, no matter on what specious grounds the dominant herd can concoct)--is the tendency in those groups to then recreate, in microcosm, precisely the same forms of herding and shunning that occur in the larger mass; which once again are based in no small measure on the labels one chooses to wear and display to others, and the desire to pigeonhole oneself into an (apparently) immutable category. The infighting that looks now to be taking place among the members of the LGBTQ's over who gets to fit and who doesn't is a clear reflection of the ever-present danger that becomes an inherent part of this, and can come uncomfortably close to group-think; and that pattern is being repeated ad infinitum inside of other so-called 'minority' groups. In short, these splinterings have too often the effect of mirroring the surrounding ugly prejudices of the mainstream, and maybe in part even magnifying them. I don't know how that part of the equation is to be overcome; I only feel that, by creating a climate where the need to label and to mass together for support or protection becomes less immediately critical, can some sort of social healing begin. Becoming a smaller version of the larger problem only ends, it too often seems, by causing the larger problem to become greater and more intransigent than even before. I could be utterly wrong about this--likely I am--and as I said, I don't really have an answer for how to bring about this sort of paradigm shift; this is all just one moose's opinionated ramblings, born out of a sense of concern with what the society that seems only to be able to function as a set of fractured in-groups (which fracture off into ever more esoteric in-groups within themselves) may yield in the future, or how it will even continue to operate in any sort of cohesive manner. Greater inclusion would seem to be the only answer around this, and to achieve that, it may be necessary to dispense with some of the ultra-refined self defining that's going on, tempting though it is on both emotional and purely rational reasons on which it's based.  The 'them' and us 'mentality', has often been an inherent aspect of human nature and this is also born out of a need for control, superiority and even power. Being rationale, is often sidestepped, nor embraced as a defining and noble human quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 15, 2019 4:28:41 GMT
I respect that answer, and can sympathize fully with what engenders the need to form common cause and common society amongst those who have experienced the degree of ostracization and outright threat from the larger culture that homosexuals face. What concerns me, and what I think is a running link between all groups who band together in this way (based on any and all of the usual stigmata--race, faith, sexual orientation, gender; along with a thousand other markers I don't have space to list here, as humans also have a horribly nasty knack of letting their innate herd instinct go into overdrive in repelling any and all who don't fit the herd's templates, no matter on what specious grounds the dominant herd can concoct)--is the tendency in those groups to then recreate, in microcosm, precisely the same forms of herding and shunning that occur in the larger mass; which once again are based in no small measure on the labels one chooses to wear and display to others, and the desire to pigeonhole oneself into an (apparently) immutable category. The infighting that looks now to be taking place among the members of the LGBTQ's over who gets to fit and who doesn't is a clear reflection of the ever-present danger that becomes an inherent part of this, and can come uncomfortably close to group-think; and that pattern is being repeated ad infinitum inside of other so-called 'minority' groups. In short, these splinterings have too often the effect of mirroring the surrounding ugly prejudices of the mainstream, and maybe in part even magnifying them. I don't know how that part of the equation is to be overcome; I only feel that, by creating a climate where the need to label and to mass together for support or protection becomes less immediately critical, can some sort of social healing begin. Becoming a smaller version of the larger problem only ends, it too often seems, by causing the larger problem to become greater and more intransigent than even before. I could be utterly wrong about this--likely I am--and as I said, I don't really have an answer for how to bring about this sort of paradigm shift; this is all just one moose's opinionated ramblings, born out of a sense of concern with what the society that seems only to be able to function as a set of fractured in-groups (which fracture off into ever more esoteric in-groups within themselves) may yield in the future, or how it will even continue to operate in any sort of cohesive manner. Greater inclusion would seem to be the only answer around this, and to achieve that, it may be necessary to dispense with some of the ultra-refined self defining that's going on, tempting though it is on both emotional and purely rational reasons on which it's based. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and while I feel that what you describe represents only the most vocal and visible viewpoints, there's truth in everything you observe. In the end, it may be that those with axes to grind, engaging in that kind of infighting, fracturing, shunning and so forth, are simply exercising what, to them, entails being themselves. The rest of us can reject it at will, which you're freely doing, although it represents an age-old conflict around which the dust will likely never settle, and of which the OP itself is an example in its suggestion that any segment of society should behave in certain ways in order to please another. And the sequestered mindset notion of rightness and wrongness rears it's confounded head and all to keep others down or at bay, for not towing the line. The bottom line is, that it is perceived as an infraction of the 'status quo' and ruling establishment for its far superior and compassionate understanding of wisdom, that it knows what it best for society.... 
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 15, 2019 5:13:09 GMT
I just want the lgbtq letters rearranged to QGTBL LGBT sounds too close to BLT and it makes me hungry for bacon! Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on May 15, 2019 5:29:46 GMT
* I meant "goon squad". The whole thing is a farce. I also find the term "gay" offensive. I don't walk around with a silly smile on my face all day. Unfortunately, we are stuck with "gay" to appease the dense hets and then they then tell homos that they find it offensive to call a gay person a homo or queer. I have never minded the term "gay". It seems like a combination of friendly and relatively innocuous. It's easy to remember and it's the word I use for myself. Or sometimes I say "I'm attracted to guys" and leave it at that. That really works out best for me. Just hit it and move and no big deal. I am not the type of person to use the word "queer". It comes on too strong for me, and I don't think it's very friendly. Plus, "queer" is the word my dad always used in a disparaging way, so I think that is part of my dislike of the word, too. Though when I am with friends, I often use the word "fag" in a totally humorous way. So, there you go. Or, "Debbie Downer" or "Negative Nancy" or "gurrrrl" or something else cute and sassy. It depends on what friend I am with. Some are more into this kind of humor than others. God, when this topic comes up, I always think of that scene from 1985 tv movie, "Consenting Adult", when foxy Barry Tubb comes out to his uptight mother, MTM wannabe Marlo Thomas. Whenever I hear him say... "Mom, I'm a homo-sex-you-ulll!" it is to cringe. It is painful to watch, and I am embarassed for the actor. Wow. And then Mom is utterly incapable of hiding her feelings of scorn and disgust. It's just too much. I know it's probably some cruel part in me surfacing, but I would have felt such gratification if they had her pulling off the side of the road, opening the car door and then just puke her guts out. Now THAT would have been just priceless. Show us how you really feel, Marlo! Something like this would have been wonderfully apt... Just hilarious. 
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on May 15, 2019 5:31:12 GMT
I just want the lgbtq letters rearranged to QGTBL LGBT sounds too close to BLT and it makes me hungry for bacon! Love this one! Bacon makes everything better!
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 15, 2019 8:46:11 GMT
Unfortunately, we are stuck with "gay" to appease the dense hets and then they then tell homos that they find it offensive to call a gay person a homo or queer. I have never minded the term "gay". It seems like a combination of friendly and relatively innocuous. It's easy to remember and it's the word I use for myself. Or sometimes I say "I'm attracted to guys" and leave it at that. That really works out best for me. Just hit it and move and no big deal. I am not the type of person to use the word "queer". It comes on too strong for me, and I don't think it's very friendly. Plus, "queer" is the word my dad always used in a disparaging way, so I think that is part of my dislike of the word, too. Though when I am with friends, I often use the word "fag" in a totally humorous way. So, there you go. Or, "Debbie Downer" or "Negative Nancy" or "gurrrrl" or something else cute and sassy. It depends on what friend I am with. Some are more into this kind of humor than others. God, when this topic comes up, I always think of that scene from 1985 tv movie, "Consenting Adult", when foxy Barry Tubb comes out to his uptight mother, MTM wannabe Marlo Thomas. Whenever I hear him say... "Mom, I'm a homo-sex-you-ulll!" it is to cringe. It is painful to watch, and I am embarassed for the actor. Wow. And then Mom is utterly incapable of hiding her feelings of scorn and disgust. It's just too much. I know it's probably some cruel part in me surfacing, but I would have felt such gratification if they had her pulling off the side of the road, opening the car door and then just puke her guts out. Now THAT would have been just priceless. Show us how you really feel, Marlo! Something like this would have been wonderfully apt... Just hilarious. Gay comes across as too prancing and dancing to me and is too feeble a term. I find it patronizing personally, but I guess we are stuck with it.
I love Consenting Adult, but there are some naive things about it, but I guess they had to represent the mentality of the majority of the herd to make its point and Jeff's parents were prime examples of this. I was more annoyed though when Jeff's supportive sister made the comment that if she was calling the shots and she did acknowledge that she wasn't, that if it was up to her, she wouldn't have asked for a gay brother. That was a veiled prejudicial argument to bring up, because Jeff wouldn't have been Jeff, or quite the same person, if he had been straight. What did she really want, or what was her real take on homosexuality and her brother? It made her out to be a bit of a phony.
It is the conditioning of the term 'homosexual', that has been forced onto society to see it as wrong and deviant. Why should it be any different sounding to 'heterosexual'? Homo only means singular or same. I guess many people still have issues with sex, regardless of who it is with and not to mention breeders putting themselves up onto a some superior sort of pedestal, because they are "normal"... I guess if they were "normal", they wouldn't be procreating deviant homos..... 
|
|
