home

Saints LB Stands Up for LGBT Rights

From Sports Left -- New Orleans Saints LB Scott Fujita is speaking up for gay rights at the Super Bowl:

Last fall, in an interview on the Sirius XM Satellite Radio show “Edge of Sports,” Fujita bluntly supported a march for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. “Just because I’m in favor of gay rights doesn’t mean I’m gay,” Fujita told the host, Dave Zirin. “I know who I am. My wife knows who I am.” Fujita, who played in college at California, and his wife, Jaclyn, have twin daughters who are 2 years old.

In Tuesday’s Super Bowl session with members of the news media, Fujita, who said his teammates give him some gentle teasing in the language of the locker room for his public opinions, reflected on how the campus he attended is known for progressive attitudes. “There is a certain stigma that comes with being from Berkeley,” he said. “And I’m proud of that stigma.”

[MORE . . .]

[. . .] He also discussed the attitudes of other athletes toward gay rights. “By and large, the players are more tolerant than they get credit for,” he said. “It’s not a big issue. Some guys will think you are crazy for believing one way, but they’ll still accept you.”

I am not a big fan of celebrities using their notoriety to promote their views (I'm looking at you Tim Tebow), but they have that right.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Open Thread | Will Blanche Lincoln Switch Parties? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    True (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    But maybe it will take somthing like this - a big, macho football player - standing up and saying, "What's the big deal?"  The twitters are always about "But those guys shower together - you don't want (gasp) gay people around!"  

    Maybe statements like this could help in the long run.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    I think what Fujita said is important in the context of the multifaceted homophobia in athletics.  

    And why shouldn't celebrities promote their views?  They can do a lot to raise awareness.

    Parent

    Maybe some day, we will not hear (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    the common refrain of "but I'm not gay - not that there's anything wrong with it!" whenever a straight person voices an opinion in support of equal rights.

    It's good that someone like Fujita stepped forward to move us closer to that day - even if he still had to make sure everyone knows that he's not gay.

    I know what you mean - my 1st husband was gay, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by allimom99 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    and so we divorced (in '88). The splitup was actually harder on him (maybe because I realized I couldn't be what he wanted, and it wasn't anyone's fault. Happily, we both met others, and he was able to marry his longtime partner when Connecticut legalized.

    It did take a long time to talk about, but I've met many people who have had the experience. And to get back on topic, I applaud Fujita for being willing to take a stand. When we stop thinking about his support for LGBT rights as unusual, we'll have gotten somewhere for real.

    Parent

    I read the whole interview at (none / 0) (#13)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    Edge of Sports.  Fujita's comments didn't come off as defensive to me, at all.  He was responding to questions asked by the interviewer:  what's the atmosphere in the locker room and are you afraid other people will think you're gay.

    Here's an excerpt, with the language taken out of context for the NY Times article.

    Dave Zirin: ...How present is homophobia in the locker room on a day in and day out basis?

    Scott Fujita: ... I think I have an opinion, that I wish was shared by everybody, but I honestly believe that it's shared by more [football players] than we know because a lot of people just won't speak out about it. I'm hoping that what [Baltimore Ravens linebacker] Brendon [Ayanbadejo] did, and things like what I'm doing, speaking out a little bit, hopefully more people will step up and acknowledge the fact that hey, its ok to talk about this. Just because I'm in favor of gay rights doesn't mean that I'm gay or doesn't mean I'm some kind of "sissy" or something. That's the language that you hear in locker rooms. I know these guys well. I know for the most part, guys are a lot more tolerant than they get credit for but they're not comfortable yet speaking out about it. It's going to come in time. By in large, it's an opinion that's shared by more people than are realized. I just wish it was shared by everybody.

    Dave Zirin: Scott, do you have any concerns that teammates, fans, people will say Scott Fujita may be married and have kids, but maybe on the down low he might really be gay? Do you have concern that teammates, bloggers, the press will talk that kind of smack about you either behind your back or to your face?

    Scott Fujita: No, I have no concern about that whatsoever. I know who I am. My wife knows who I am. I don't care one way or the other Dave. I imagine that when some of this gets out guys in the locker room might give me a hard time, and they always give me a hard time. They call me the Pinko Communist Fag from Berkley. I'm used to it. I can take it all.

    You might not agree w/my assessment, but the whole interview is here for you to read if you want.  His comments about gay adoption were, IMO, great and not the least bit defensive or wishy-washy.

    Parent

    I wasn't suggesting he was being (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    defensive - at least that wasn't my intent - I was just hoping the day comes when people don't feel - or aren't made to feel - they have to vet their comments by announcing their own sexual orientation.  

    He responded well to the questions asked, I agree - thanks for posting the excerpt and the link.


    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#15)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    I used "defensive" b/c that's generally how those types of comments you described come about, IME.

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#128)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    an interesting interview! Interesting guy.

    And thanks for posting your personal experience.  There's many roads we follow, to many different conclusions.  I'm glad you've reached a good place for yourself.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    this may be the first generation of young men coming up who dont have Lord of the Flies memories of that kid everyone had 'suspicions' about being locked in his locker, having his head dunked in the toilet etc etc

    Parent
    No excuse (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    Sexual abuse is terrible, whether it's male or female, or done by a male or female. But that shouldn't be allowed to be the excuse or apology for homophobia. It seems to be the stock defense in every gay murder committed now.

    No group should be painted with the same brush because of the actions of a very small minority.

    I have been out and living in the gay community for over 30 years and I've come to realize people are people regardless. 99.99% of the gays I know just want to live a decent life with as few hassles as possible. They're definitely not trying to provoke a confrontation by accosting straight men or seducing kids.

    For Sports Left... (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:23:42 AM EST
    ...how about maybe putting up an Open Thread once in awhile?  

    Consider them all Open Threads (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    But we've all been trained... (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    ...so well not go off-topic or suffer the consequences!  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    Here it is necessary.

    there are not 3 comments a thread at SL.

    Parent

    Fujita balances out Tebow? (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    Personally, I like to know where people stand (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    I think it's better for society when people say what they believe in public. Not to hate on the south, but I think that one of the things that makes its politics so dysfunctional is the public veneer of politeness. So too the Senate.  

    I live in the South (none / 0) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    I don't see people here as any more plastic or veneerish than those that I encountered while living in San Diego.

    Parent
    My family is from the South (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    and I live near San Diego....

    Southern politeness and warm friendliness is what I miss--the politics, not so much....

    SoCal--people here can be smiley, friendly in a breezy, superficial, slick, hustler sort of way--least attractive aspect to the culture here.

    Parent

    Smart player from Cal Berkeley (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    He was a walk-on at Cal--meaning he got admitted via his academic record, not athletic ability.  You gotta be mucho smart to do that...

    Fujita is a lanky, overachieving linebacker.....Came from Dallas Cowboys along with Sean Payton....

    Not all that talented, but knows how to make a play and understands offenses and defenses...Will have to play the game of his life against Manning....and he might be able to do it.

    Just one more reason to root for the Saints...

    Check. And we have (none / 0) (#19)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    So far, Fujita puts the Saints ahead with a slight lead on my Who to Root For scorecard.

    Not many NFL linebackers end up publicly espousing such librul views.  Maybe only Dave Megesey, lineman or LBer from the 60s/70s, comes to mind as a big-guy NFLer who was really outspokenly liberal, often in Jim Bouton-ish ways.  Or maybe this is just my political stereotype of huge macho pro football players, with the brutish image of RWer Dick Butkis in mind ...

    Parent

    And then of course there's Manning (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    the Fred "Dawn of the Dead" Thompson guy.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    I find it comical that so many straight guys are afraid of being hit on! (Or so we're lead to believe) What egoes they must have.

    Do they think this is some great gay fantasy. That every gay guy is out to convert them. (Kind of like the Morman's and Evangelicals)!

    It's a (none / 0) (#17)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    convenient cover for the "gay panic defense".

    Parent
    I have never understood (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    the whole "Aaaaahhhhhhh! I might get propositioned by a gay guy!!!!!!" thing with some straight (or supposedly straight) men.   Most women have been hit on, many sexually harassed, and far too many sexually assaulted, but you don't usually hear a lot of women constantly and publicly expressing fears of straight men.  Granted, women and men aren't generally required to shower together, but they may share very, very close proximity in lots of situations, such as the military (where, in fact, many women are sexually harassed and even assaulted- as many as one in three have experienced sexual assault).

    Parent
    Nobody (none / 0) (#25)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    wants to be the guy who gets treated like a girl.

    Parent
    I never minded... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    a free drink is a free drink...I've accepted my share from gay men hitting on me.

    Nice to get a taste of how the other sex lives:)  

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    when you're a victim of rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and/or pay inequity get back to me and let me know how it's going.

    Parent
    Speak of the devil... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    actually I can say I've experienced some of that mess...minor sexual assault at the hands of a police officer, one old ladyfriend punched me in the face a couple times before I could escape, and the dudes who are married with kids at my outfit are making more dough than my single childless arse.

    As for how its going...you roll with the punches and try like hell not to be victimized again.

    And yes, I do realize the above is a cakewalk compared to what some other women (and men) have been through.

    Parent

    What constitutes "minor sexual assault"? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    And BTW, one's ability to "roll with the punches" has a great deal to do with how hard and how often and where and how and when and by whom one has been beaten.

    Parent
    If you really wanna know... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    hand inside my drawers squeezing my junk was the minor sexual assault...under the pretext of "looking for drugs".  Probably more a power-trip thing than a sexual thing...as most sex crimes are.  

    But a very minor one in the big scheme...nothing like what happened to Louima or now Mineo.


    Parent

    If I understand the situation correctly, (none / 0) (#125)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 08:21:41 PM EST
    you're saying that while patting you down, the cop went well beyond the bounds of what he(?) needed to do to determine that you didn't have drugs around your groin area.  

    What you're describing is a form of police brutality and sexual assault isn't it? Did you file a complaint or press charges?

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#47)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    It's always easier to call women who point out women's inequality "man haters".

    Parent
    Can you show me where kdog (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    called you a man-hater?  Because following the "parent" button to the comments, I'm not seeing it.

    Parent
    Oops - sorry - I found it. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    Eyes needing a rest.

    Parent
    frankly (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    this comment, and what kdog said about having drinks bought, are completely dismissive of the fact that there is no such thing as a "female" or "male" experience.

    I have never experienced sexual assault, domestic violence or pay inequity.  Does that make me less of a woman?  I also don't allow strange men to buy me drinks (and of those I know, if they buy me one, I return the favor).  Does that make me less of a woman?  Does that mean that I don't know what it's "like" to be female?

    The whole premise is kind of offensive.  Like you don't get female "cred" without having horrible things happen to you, or without taking advantage of the opposite sex.

    Parent

    It isn't (none / 0) (#69)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    my premise that there is a "male" or "female" experience.  It's my premise that women in the US still do not have equality.

    Parent
    Well, kdog, did you divulge (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:23:12 PM EST
    your sexual orientation to those gay men who were "hitting on" you and buying you "free drinks"? Or did you just dupe the gay guys and sustain the mis-perception at their expense?

    BTW, if you are a straight man letting gay men buy you drinks - that doesn't in any way give you any "taste of how the other sex [female] lives".

    This callous anecdote of yours is not the kind of thing one hears from anybody who has even a shred of genuine sensitivity toward LGBTQ people - or to the experience of heterosexual women and what it means to hit on.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    I'd always say something like "as long as you know we're just sharing a drink"...and usually the guys would be down for that...a little conversation and company.

    Perhaps you're right..it would be more akin to a lesbian letting a straight dude buy them drinks, or better yet a straight woman letting a lesbian buy them drinks.

    Maybe I'm callous, or maybe you're taking yourself way too seriously foxhole.  I like to think my years of comments advocating for human rights and dignity for all human beings speak for themselves.  

    Parent

    Is it "myself" I'm taking too serously? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    Or am I taking your flippancy on complex issues too seriously, kdog?

    As for your proposition that a straight guy letting unwitting gay guys buy them drinks is like :

    a lesbian letting a straight dude buy them drinks, or better yet a straight woman letting a lesbian buy them drinks.

    Yeah, that may happen all the time in your world - funny how it so rarely happens in mine.

    I'm sorry that I haven't reviewed your "years of comments advocating for human rights and dignity for all human beings". I'm looking at what you're saying here and now and it's full of blind spots.  

    Parent

    If right here is what you're looking at... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    see that smiley face at the end of my comment?  What do you think the purpose of that smiley face is?  

    Good lord...is it me or has it gotten testier round here lately?  

    Parent

    Just a bit (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    Did you mean to put a "smiley face" (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 08:08:37 PM EST
    at the end of your earlier comment to Emma?

    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:16:53 PM EST (none / 0) (#40)

    Spoken like a true man-hater...whatever made you that way I am truly sorry Emma, but we're all not the devil.

    Wow, "man-hater": a term of opprobrium that's been specifically used to shut up independent, outspoken women since the beginning of time. (I thought it had been replaced by "feminazi".)

    Long story short, you do not call a woman a "man-hater" in the process of claiming that you are "advocating for human rights and dignity for all human beings". You cannot do the former and still make a legitimate claim to the latter.

    So, we're way beyond a "smiley face" antidote. You can apologize for a thing like this, but you still can't un-ring the bell.

    Parent

    It wasn't that long ago (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    That the following conversation took place between that big doofus Tony Siragusa and Dick Stockton / Daryl Johnston on national TV about then-Lions' quarterbck, Joey Harrington.  It's not necessarily obvious from reading the comment, but if you watched it live (as I did), it was pretty obvious what he was trying to say:

    Tony Siragusa: "He seems a little different than what I expected. I thought he went... and was a little bit too overconfident in the meeting. Just a different kind of guy. Not a meat-and-potato guy, but a very sophisticated man. That's as much as I can go into right now, Dick."

    Daryl Johnston: "More champagne and caviar than meat and potatoes?"

    Siragusa: "Yeah! I wouldn't see him going out and ordering a beer anytime soon, to tell you the truth.

    Dick Stockton: "In other words, he may not be your kind of guy?"

    Siragusa: "Nah, he's the kind of guy who's on the other side of the club than I am. He's over there with the champagne and the caviar, and also the strawberries and chocolate."

    Stockton: "Yeah, we get the idea."

    But, Joey Harrington shot back the next day:

    "I'm not his kind of guy, why? Because I was cordial in the production meeting? Because I try to be articulate? Because I smile when I play? Because I enjoy myself out there? Because I'm not a billy badass?

    "I was raised a certain way. I was raised to be polite. I was raised to look someone in the eye, and when they ask you a question then you answer it. If he's got a problem with the way I play, then go ahead and say it.

    "If he looks at how I play I don't think he'd be making those comments. If he looks at how I work, I don't think he'd be making those comments. If he came to the parking lot and checked to see whose car is the last one out of here every day, would he be making those comments.

    "It's nice playing in front of the best linebacker in the history of the game, isn't it?

    "If that's his insult, then that doesn't say a whole lot for himself. If he says I'm sophisticated and articulate, then boy, that hurts. That really stings."



    Parent
    truth be told, (none / 0) (#82)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    Do they think this is some great gay fantasy. That every gay guy is out to convert them. (Kind of like the Morman's and Evangelicals)!

    i find the mormons and evangelicals far more annoying, at least a gay guy takes "not interested" for an answer.

    in my adulthood, i've always felt that only really insecure people worry a lot about being "hit on" by gays or lesbians. if it bothers you that much, maybe you should be looking in the mirror.

    Parent

    Athletes may have more practical issues at stake (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    ... than shower awkwardness (sheesh) or being "tolerated" by teammates. If you've ever played sports after the age of puberty, being looked at in the shower isn't even an issue. And what's with this idiotic assumption that gay athletes will be indiscriminately attracted to every male he encounters, in the shower or otherwise?

    I think it's great that Fujita made that statement. (In relation to the Oscar nominations, actor Colin Firth had some similarly thoughtful insights about the hidden prejudices gay actors face even within a gay-"friendly" industry.)

    Unless an athlete is fortunate enough to play competitively beyond the prime years (eg, avoiding cumulative injuries and other pitfalls), simple business considerations more related to image than performance -- like endorsements and money-making appearances off the field -- have to figure into the dynamic.

    Most pro athletes' prime earning years are limited and the toll on the body is brutal. Even considering what seem to be obscenely high salaries in the big leagues, the vast majority of working athletes (think Crash Davis from Bull Durham) have the huge pressure of performing well enough to make it to the big leagues.

    Once there, they have to stay long enough to start regularly, and then keep up a certain public image to attract endorsements that will see them through retirement.

    Teammates will probably know if someone's on the DL (not the Disabled List) and not make trouble by, eg, blabbing it out too much to the media.

    Martina (none / 0) (#24)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    Navratilova always said she lost millions of dollars by being out.

    Parent
    Navratilova was a trailblazer and a true champion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    ... in every sense of the word. She did it at the top of her game, too, which took guts.

    She certainly deserved better than what she got at the time, given that she paved the way not just for global human rights but women's sports overall (like equal prize money for female tennis players, more women to consider pro sports as a viable career.)

    Parent

    Let's not forget (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    Billie Jean King, who was trailblazing for women's sports at the same time and even earlier.  King vs Riggs, for example, and helping start up women's team tennis league.

    Similar public backlash for King when she got outed or came out.

    Parent

    i've always liked martina, (none / 0) (#83)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    she seemed to be true to herself, and strong enough to put it all on the line.

    Parent
    I think what many here don't realize, (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    or are forgetting about, is that many young males are sexually abused by older males.

    Whether the older males are gay, or are not but are continuing some power trip that they were taught by being forced to experience themselves, or whatever, it does happen much more often than many of us are willing to admit and therefor it has a significant effect on men in our society.

    Odd that so many "progressives" choose to have so little interest in and empathy for the root causes of some issue...

    yea but (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    that is true for young women as well.

    And yet women as a whole are not expected to fear straight men.

    It doesn't permeate into the rest of society.

    Parent

    "yea but" is exactly (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    what I'm talking about.

    It does affect men - in fact it affects all men - in our society.

    "This family needs our tax money/gvt assistance."

    "yea but plenty of other families have had hard times too, but they didn't need our tax money/gvt assistance."

    "yea but" doesn't help solve a thing.

    Parent

    my point was (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    it's no different for men than women.

    So why should we treat it any differently?

    I also don't see that you are proposing any kind of solution to this problem.  Simply complaining about it doesn't help solve a thing.  It just seems like you are using it as an excuse for all men to be homophobic.  Not trying to prevent these things from happening in the first place.

    Homophobia also doesn't solve a thing.  And realizing that women deal with this every day might help put it into perspective for men - that just because certain people do bad things doesn't mean it's okay to demonize the whole group.  I'm sure straight men sure wouldn't appreciate it if women did that.  That's what "yea but" means.  Put yourself in the other person's shoes, and maybe you'd see it differently.

    Parent

    and lets be fair (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    some women do demonize men for this reason.  But it doesn't permeate society.  And it shouldn't.  I don't see why we can't expect the same from men.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#45)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    understand what the genesis of this comment is.  I don't understand what it is you think you're commenting to, or against.

    I don't see anybody here minimizing grown men's predation against boys.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    if it's no different for men, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Parent
    Men really are different from women, (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    and vise versa.

    Parent
    speaking for me only... (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    our similarities are greater than our differences.  And there is nothing that says we can't still learn from each other about how to deal with this stuff.

    I refuse to believe that there is something inherent in men that can't recognize the difference between an individual action and group action - simply because they are men.

    Unless you can explain why men should be more afraid of this, other than stating "we're different" - I really don't understand where you are coming from here.  What is it specifically about men that you think makes it harder to deal with these issues, as a society?

    Parent

    I'm sorry you refuse, (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    and I'm sorry you've chosen to frame the issue in such a manner.

    Male (typically older male) sexual abuse of younger males exists widely enough in our society such that all men are very aware of it, whether direct victims of it or not, and it affects them.

    That it apparently generally affects women differently than men is reality.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    I hate you.  Just kidding :).  But man this thread has gotten contentious.

    I don't really know how else to frame it.  If you can't deal with homosexuality because of something an individual does to another individual, I don't see how it isn't "blaming a group for the actions of an individual".

    I'm asking you to explain why it's different, but so far all I've gotten is "because we're men" - which is not very helpfull.

    Also, the fact that it affects men differently may be the reality - I don't know - but I don't see that it should be the reality.  Or that it's somehow ok for that to be the reality.  That's kind of like saying "discrimination is ok because its the reality".  Maybe you aren't saying it's ok, honeslty, I can't really tell from your comments whether you think it is or not.

    I guess my overall point to this is, just because it happens, doesn't make it right.  And pointing out that other people experience similar things without reacting the same way is just about showing - there is another way.

    Parent

    To be very clear, (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    to you and anyone else who has tried to read between my lines, I never said anything even approaching anything like "it's somehow ok for that to be the reality."

    To rephrase my very first comment on this thread, men react to sexuality the way they do for actual reasons.

    Merely dismissively referring to "homophobes" as, say, pernicious or scaredy-cats or troglodytes or some other "lesser" life form (not that I'm saying you did), is not helpful to the issue...

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    I apologize for sort of misinterpreting that.  I guess my follow up would be - why do you think it is that men respond differently to that than women?  

    It goes back to the chicken and the egg question.  If people weren't taught to have bad associations with homosexuality - perhaps these things would be easier for men who have been abused to deal with out in the open - without somehow feeling stigmatized by that as well.

    If different lifestyles were accepted more, and out in the open more, they would be better understood, and less likely to be feared.

    Parent

    What affects all men? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    Grown men's predation on boys?  So the gay panic defense is justified?  So homophobia is justified? Is that what you're saying?

    What ARE you saying?

    Parent

    than I already have.

    Surely some understanding is not a bad thing?

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#57)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    trying to understand what you're saying.  I don't understand, so I'm seeking clarification.  I don't know what to do or say if that's coming across as a lack of empathy.

    The last thing I'll say on it:  I don't believe that the real fact of grown men raping boys justifies either homophobia or the gay panic defense.  I don't know that you were saying it did.  I'm hoping that's NOT what you were saying.

    Parent

    And I thought (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:01:45 PM EST
    conservatives had given up asserting that gay men were more likely to be pedophiles.....

    Parent
    It's not that hard. (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    many young males are sexually abused by older males. [snip] it has a significant effect on men in our society.


    Parent
    So do you agree or disagree with (none / 0) (#134)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:59:27 PM EST
    Emma's statement:
    I don't believe that the real fact of grown men raping boys justifies either homophobia or the gay panic defense.


    Parent
    I agree that grown men raping boys (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    is a cause of the reaction many men have to male on male sexuality.

    Parent
    OK, so are you saying this (none / 0) (#137)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:25:40 AM EST
    justifies homophobia or the gay panic defense?

    Parent
    "Just" behavior (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    is a very difficult standard to apply to a traumatized person. Pointing out that some people carry pain that distorts their present experience -- which can be backed up by distorting messages from society -- and acting out of that experience in ways that are unjust to others, is an ugly fact of life.

    I dont think pointing that out is the same thing as  "justifying" homophobia, pedophilia or anything else.

    Parent

    Your point has been made repeatedly (none / 0) (#142)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    by a number of people on this thread. Which is all well and good.

    But, don't you find it even the least bit odd that a thread about a prospective expansion of LGBTQ civil rights has been rife with comments associating gay men with pedophilia?

    Suppose this were a thread about a prospective expansion of civil rights for another group - like a racial minority or a religious minority - let's say African Americans or Muslims. Do you think a significant percentage of comments would focus on personal negative experiences with members of those groups?

    I believe both you and I know it wouldn't be that way, nor should it be - especially at a site called Talk Left.

    Parent

    This kind of thing happens (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 01:08:12 AM EST
    with a lot of discussions around this place: one person makes a controversial or provocative observation, that may at best be peripherally related to the topic at hand, and the next thing you know people who shouldnt have to explain themselves are put on the defensive and others apply themselves to deconstructing what the commentator meant, and it kind of snowballs from there.

    Does it have a place in a discussion of LGBTQ civil rights? Only very peripherally and only in the sense of it being an ugly reality that there is a well organized segment of society that is invested in limiting genuine understanding and perpetuating bigotry -- one of the results of which is an unnecessary amount of confusion and suffering centering around sexuality, which leads to the kind of rampant misunderstanding and scapegoating that often happens in the wake of the kind of traumatic experiences su mentioned.

    Parent

    You're right, I have seen (none / 0) (#144)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    a lot of discussions around this place where people make what you call "controversial or provocative observations".

    Unfortunately, many of those comments are, in effect, injurious and inflammatory - sometimes deliberately so. I've noticed this kind of socially reactionary commentary tends to crop up most frequently in the context of discussions about sexuality, women's issues, misogyny, and topics relating to the LGBTQ community.

    Lest we forget: in this particular post, BTD was commending New Orleans Saints LB Scott Fujita for his tolerance and sensitivity toward LGBTQ civil rights. Yet, as I've previously noted, this thread is rife with comments associating gay men with pedophilia.

    I see you have chosen not to answer the question I raised in my foregoing comment, it still stands:

    Suppose this were a thread about expansion of civil rights for another group - like a racial minority or a religious minority - let's say African Americans or Muslims. Do you think a significant percentage of comments would focus on personal negative experiences with members of those groups?????????



    Parent
    It wasnt so much not choosing to answer (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    as getting sidetracked.

    Does it "have a place"? Should we pretend that a very sizable contingent in this country DONT make those associations -- out of shear ignorance and for political purposes -- and hope that problem just fades away (not likely), or do we take the bullsh*t by the horns as it were, and through enlightened discussion consign it to pit of ignominy from whence it sprang?

    Btw, I sure you've noticed that, to some extent, "Muslim" is the new black, LBGTQ -- even on some threads at this site, on certain days.

    Parent

    This thread was hijacked... (none / 0) (#147)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 09:12:09 PM EST
    This thread was hijacked early on by a commenter (sarcastic unnamed one) who had a bad attitude and an axe to grind. Worse than that, s/he repeatedly interjected pedophilia into a discussion about LGBTQ civil rights. Here's the gist of what s/he said:
    I think what many here don't realize, or are forgetting about, is that many young males are sexually abused by older males... Odd that so many "progressives" choose to have so little interest in and empathy for the root causes of some issues...Every man is aware of male on male sexual abuse and this is a root cause of the male response to male on male sexuality...My intent was that perhaps some TL'rs who never thought about so-called "homophobes" any further than the bumper sticker-level comments about them often seen here on TL would open their minds a little. [Note: nobody on this thread called anybody a homophobe and nobody denied the actual reality of child sexual abuse.]
    The commenter (sarcastic unnamed one) proceeded to make 23 freaking comments, most of which emphasized the original contention about the prevalence of man-boy sex abuse and it's presumed totalizing effect on male perceptions of homosexuality.  

    *Long story short: This commenter never concedes that there is actually any such thing as wide-spread, irrational, unfounded antipathy toward gay men. In other words the commenter does not acknowledge, nor does s/he denounce, homophobia. Instead s/he repeatedly alleges that societal attitudes toward gay men are "caused" by male on male pedophilia and s/he hopes this information will improve our outlook on "so-called homophobes".  

    Of course, sarcastic unnamed one may wish to come back and obfuscate the record, but the horse is already out of the barn and all that.  

    Parent

    Wow, this thread is still going. (none / 0) (#146)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    If you are referring to me, and I think you are, I think if you read the thread without bias you will realize my initial comment was a general response to all the numerous previous comments regarding "homophobes."

    Discussions here, as in life, often develop organically and morph unexpectedly.

    This particular discussion started down the homophobia discussion trail with the second comment from the top, and continued on that trail via many other comments that, for example, dismissively refer to (snicker, snicker) "homophobes" as "comical" in their "fear" of being "hit on" by gay guys. Etc, etc.

    My intent was that perhaps some TL'rs who never thought about so-called "homophobes" any further than the bumper sticker-level comments about them often seen here on TL would open their minds a little.

    Parent

    um.................................yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:00:01 PM EST
    you stick with that, if it makes you feel better.

    Odd that so many "progressives" choose to have so little interest in and empathy for the root causes of some issue...

    no doubt some are, the vast majority aren't:

    many young males are sexually abused by older males.

    to suggest (and ask us to take seriously) that this is the root cause of homophobia in our society is, at best, laughable. not to mention an insult to the intelligence of everyone on this site.

    no, the real reason is the propaganda of church and sports, not abuse. those two places are where the vast majority of males in this country first come in contact with rabid homophobia.

    Parent

    To deny that male on male sexual abuse (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    exists widely enough in our society such that, essentially, every male is aware of it, whether a direct victim of it or not, and is affected by it, is probably the most ridiculous position you've ever taken on TL.

    Parent
    It's well known that the vast majority (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by allimom99 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    of pedophiles are hetero. Your comment vaguely implies otherwise and perpetuates a very damaging and patently FALSE stereotype. I don't think this is your intent, but I doubt the average homophobe is a victim of abuse.

    Parent
    Males are vastly more likely (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    to be sexually abused by other males than women. And young boys are vastly more likely to be abused by older men than by their approximate peers or younger boys.

    Parent
    Fallacious logic (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by ricosuave on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    Even if you accept the ridiculous stance that any male pedophile who preys on a boy is gay, and even if you assert that bulk of predation on boys is done by males, it does not logically follow that homosexual men are child sexual predators.  That is a humongous leap in logic that is not supported by any facts.  It doesn't even make sense to discuss child sexual predators as a topic related to gay men.

    Simply put: whether a person is gay or straight (however you define it) is not in any way helpful in predicting whether that person is a child molester.

    Parent

    You are trying my patience. (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:38:44 PM EST
    That's not at all what I said, in fact your fallacious strawman directly conflicts with what I have specifically said in other comments.

    If and when men get sexually abused it is mostly/almost always by other men. Every man is aware of male on male sexual abuse. This is a root cause of the male response to male on male sexuality.

    Read and comprehend, don't waste my time.

    Parent

    Sorry, disagree. (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    Yes, most males who are sexually abused are abused by other males. So are most women who are abused. The vast majority of sexual predators are MEN, (straight men, by the way) regardless of the gender of the victims.

    And while this may be the root cause of your response to gay male sexuality (I don't know your history, just postulating here), I do not accept it as the root cause of male homophobia.

    Male homophobia arises out of the male's need to not be perceived to be in any way like a woman. To always be the sexual aggressor, to never be a "sissy", etc.

    It is all part of the "women are icky" syndrome that informs so very much of our culture.

    Parent

    Multi-causality (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:45:46 PM EST
    Im always a little mistrustful of anyone who claims to know THE "root cause" of entire swathes of humanity's experience. That leads to seeing and hearing another's experience through the filter of ideology rather than through attempting to be empathetic. Everyone's experience and influences are slightly different.

    Parent
    Well, to be very clear, (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:52:20 PM EST
    I said "a" cause, not "the" cause.

    That male on male sexual abuse exists enough for every male to be aware of, and male on male sexual abuse is basically the only sexual abuse men experience and/or is the only male sexual abuse any male is ever aware of, very much affects how men relate to male on male sexuality.

    The rest of what you say - aggressor, sissy, etc. - seems to tie in pretty well with all of that...

    Parent

    To be more clear you sd " a root cause" (none / 0) (#133)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:41:19 PM EST
    From sarcastic unnamed one:
    Every man is aware of male on male sexual abuse. This is a root cause of the male response to male on male sexuality.


    Parent
    Yes, thank you. More precise. (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:08:48 AM EST
    What women and "woman" (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    symbolizes as "icky" is DEFINITELY a very pervasive, powerful influence underlying a lot of other influences.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 08:32:14 PM EST
    Because people tend to think (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    associatively. So, on a semi-conscious level, a lot of males who were abused as children by men, will (reactively) associate "men who like men" with that-man-who-did-that-thing-to-me. You hate Chevy Impalas because that girl in High School who broke your heart drove a Chevy Impala. The 9-11 hijackers equaled all Muslims for millions of people.

    It's not a matter of what SHOULD happen -- obviously it shouldnt -- but this goes on all the time.

    Then, to complicate matters, we have those who know better, but who are all-too-happy to exploit and encourage for political, power-seeking purposes the aforementioned tendencies in the populace  

    Parent

    Thanks jondee, (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    I'm about out of energy on this one...

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    what's the point you're trying to make?

    Parent
    Emma, are you looking for a fight, or (4.25 / 4) (#73)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    a conversation?  Because not so long ago, you and Military Tracy had what I can only describe as Tracy attempting to relate things from her own experience, and you jumping on her with both feet and pounding on her with a club.

    We get that you're angry, and no one says you don't have a right to be, but treating everyone who comes into contact with you as an enemy who is only out to get you is resulting in your anger being flung right back - at you.

    There are important points to be made, but their meaning is getting lost in the vitriol.


    Parent

    Tough (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    I'm not the one who started the vitriol.  I got called a man-hater.  I have my own views on people using hate speech against me.  Clearly those views don't share wide support here.

    RE:  Militarytracy, clearly I have my own views about being publicly labelled a liar about my own life.  Clearly those views don't share wide support here.  I also have my own views on gays being need to be taught to keep their sexual orientation "private" at work.  Clearly those views don't share wide support here.  

    As for the specific comment you referenced, I don't see how "So what's the point you're trying to make?" equals vitriol.  Perhaps I am mistaken about that.

    You clearly don't like the exchanges happening, but I remind you there are two sides in every exchange.  I have great respect for your comments and point of view here.  Even when you slip over into angry ranting.  I show that respect by not jumping in to tell you how to behave better.  Just a thought.

    Parent

    And you know what? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    I happen to think my reaction to somebody jumping into a thread about gay rights to say, basically, "but, hey, gay men DO abuse boys!  let's not forget that!" was pretty restrained and non-vitriolic.

    Let's see if we can think about an equivalent conversation about civil rights for African American people and how we might react to that, as the good liberals we are.

    If I'm looking for a fight about gay/lesbian issues, I sure don't have to look very far, do I?

    Parent

    I'm not arguing that you don't have (3.50 / 2) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    important points to make, Emma, and I'm not agreeing with some of what I will call casually insensitive comments, but as one reads through the thread, it seems like you are in attack mode.  And, at the risk of being attacked myself, it isn't always in response to those you feel have already attacked you.

    All I was attempting to do was let you know that, from my perspective, at least, whatever points you were trying to make were being lost in the anger - and I don't think that's what you were looking to have happen.

    I'm a firm believer that we all have something to learn from each other, and I guess what we all have to decide is what that is.

    Parent

    Which (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:13:51 PM EST
    comments would you characterize as "casually insensitive"?

    Maybe one lesson that could be learned here is that sometimes anger is justified and it's better to treat it as such rather than as a social faux pas that's impeding everybody else's ability to understand the very good point at the heart of the anger.  Or maybe not.

    Parent

    But, I'll tell you what Anne, (none / 0) (#92)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    I'll take my "attacking" and my anger elsewhere as soon as you take up and defend the very good points I'm making here in this thread and in the exchange with militarytracy.  So as not to clutter the conversation with my anger, you understand.

    Parent
    This is the same argument my children (3.50 / 2) (#109)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    used to make when I would tell them to quit bickering: "She started it, so she has to end it," "I'll stop when she stops," "why do I have to be nice to her when she isn't nice to me?"

    Blech.

    It's childish and totally unproductive.

    I considered getting into the "discussion," but it was degenerating into a food fight, and I wasn't in the mood for that; plus, I don't respond well to being backed into a corner and being ordered to do perform at someone else's demands.

    It's no skin off my nose if you want to fling your anger around here - it's not my blog - have at it.

    Parent

    And your arguments (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    are the same arguments people use to avoid taking a stand for or against something.  Process, process, process -- it's all about the process not about the substance.  Remind you of anybody?

    If you think you have the answer, the better way, the better process, to conduct conversations about any or all topics, by all means, have at it.  Feel free to put your critiques into action by standing up for your beliefs in the way you think is optimal.  If you, however, don't want to bother doing that, I guess you could feel free to criticize others who don't go along with your idea of how the process should work.  It just doesn't strike me as a very substantive position to take.

    As for being backed into a corner, I didn't force you to come in here and level process criticisms at me.  Any corner you're in is of your own making.

    As for the "food fight" -- I find that one of the least productive methods of avoiding food fights is to take a side against somebody based on process criticisms.  YMMV.

    Parent

    Emma, I knew from your reaction to the (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    one comment I made about Fujita that you were loaded for bear, and I was right.  You've been reading my comments long enough to know that I am quite capable of standing up for my opinions, and I'll continue to do so.  And you are free to weigh in on my process for that, if you like.

    You didn't back me into a corner, but you backed quite a few people into one and demanded that they respond to you; that's what I didn't feel like being a part of.

    You seem like a good person who has something to say, and it's just my opinion that it got lost in your approach; I also think you are pretty sloppy about making sure you know what it is others are saying before you bite their heads off - it's not exactly fighting fair to set up an argument based on a false conclusion, is it? How do you find the substance in that?

    Enough.  Last comment from me on this subject.

    Parent

    I knew (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    from your reaction to my comment about Fujita that you were itching to get in a confrontation with me.  So, you know, pot meet kettle, I suppose.

    You picked this fight.  Not me.  And you picked it over a question I asked for somebody to clarify their position.  And you picked it in a conversation where I repeatedly asked somebody to clarify their position.  Odd place to make the claim that I bit somebody's head off without knowing what they're saying.

    Interestingly enough, that person has now clarified their position sufficiently that it's clear he/she is claiming that homophobia is justified by the fact that some men rape boys.  So, an even odder place to claim that I jumped to a false conclusion.

    But, okay, here's the process fight you're really having:  somebody refused to treat your buddy with the kid gloves you felt were appropriate and you're mad about it, so this is what you do.  Rather than defend the position militarytracy took about educating homosexuals to keep their sexual orientation private, or any position taken here in this thread including the justifications for homophobia conversation you inserted yourself into, you pick a fight over my style and tone and alleged lashing out.

    Funny -- didn't you and Jeralyn have this exact same fight over the State of the Union address?  Except then you were on the other side, weren't you?

    I agree, it is enough.  It's more than enough.  It's just too bad you felt it was your place to chastise me rather than engage the substance.

    Parent

    that person has now clarified their position sufficiently that it's clear he/she is claiming that homophobia is justified by the fact that some men rape boys.
    Sadly, I suspect you are. Which, if you are, would make you a bald-faced liar.

    Parent
    Classic. (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    Once in a while you actually learn something on TL.

    Several years ago someone pointed something out to me that made so much sense.

    Many people, for whatever reasons - no judgement, relate to others from the position of victim.

    iow, they divide the world into two categories: their "rescuers" and their "oppressors."

    And if you ain't their rescuer your only remaining option is to be their oppressor.

    If yu ain't with me yur agin' me. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Etc.

    Parent

    I haven't rated... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    more than a handful of comments in my TL career...but I just had to give you a 5 Anne, couldn't help myself.

    Emma, listen to the woman.  And again, I apologize to you for the "spoken like a true man-hater" comment.  I hope there are no hard feelings and we can move passed it and maybe learn from each other in the future...I assume that is why you're here too.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#80)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    Kdog.  I'll move past it.  With one pre-requisite:  you acknowledge that this the first time you've apologized for calling me a man hater.

    Regardless, I can't guarantee no hard feelings.

    Parent

    Fair enough... (3.50 / 2) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    and by all means, harbor hard feelings if it floats your boat...wouldn't wanna get in the way of anybodys pursuit of happiness.

    Parent
    Let me put this way, Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    I won't spend any time harboring hard feelings about you.  But I won't forget what I learned about you today, either.

    Parent
    Duly noted... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    likewise Emma...likewise.

    Parent
    Re: testier here... (none / 0) (#81)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    probably so, cabin fever, cold weather, same-same in DC, I know I have been more prone to waspish comments. Let's give it a month... when the pitchers and catchers report, the world begins anew, Kdog...

    Went to my college's opening day today... double header.  changes one's perspective.

    Yes, I do love baseball.

    It will get better!

    Parent

    Pitchers and Catchers... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    I'm a Mets fan jeff...thats another thing to get tied up in knots about:)

    Glad you're well enough to get out to a game...I'm heading out to some cuban-asian fusion restaraunt my friend is raving about myself in a few..."waiter, make it a double!"  

    Parent

    Anne are you objecting to style or substance? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:22:37 PM EST
    I can see how you'd have a problem with an in-your-face style because, for the most part, you attempt to frame things in a manner that's non-combative. But do you have an objection to the substance of the issues under discussion?

    If we're looking at the issues, I think Emma has the 'moral high ground' here. On the issues, I also think that's true of the exchange between MilitaryTracy and Emma on the SOTU live blog.

    I don't mind anger. I don't even mind tenacious fury - if it is a coherent argument with integrity, and if it remains consistent with the progressive/liberal principles that are being professed - I'm all good.  

    Parent

    It was definitely a style thing, and I admit (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 09:39:39 AM EST
    to having been influenced by (1) my own interaction with Emma earlier in the thread, where I felt like she was ready to accuse me of something I wasn't doing, and (2) the Emma/Military Tracy interaction last week.

    Emma - and a few others - got bit by the kdog, whose often cavalier attitude toward things, combined in this case with his calling Emma a man-hater, was like throwing a match on gasoline.  I know what that's like, because I've gone a few rounds with kdog over time.

    In retrospect, if I wasn't going to stay out of the melee altogether, it would have been better for me to support Emma over the ugly man-hater comment than to call her out for appearing to want to argue more than discuss; I guess the rapid-fire, in-your-face demands from Emma seemed too much like what happened with Tracy and I - mistakenly - thought maybe a repeat of that interaction could be avoided.  I have no right to complain about her reaction to my comment, even if it does confirm a few things for me; in the future, should I choose to interact with Emma, my comments will certainly be about substance - as they are with all of the people with whom I interact.

    As for the substance of the thread, I don't know what makes people reject and fear the sexuality of others, and I'm not about to speculate about something I don't understand.   I don't really have any interest in someone's sexual orientation; I am always interested in whether someone is a good person, and whether I think they are or aren't has nothing to do with which gender makes their hearts race.  Which is not to say that I'm not interested in people's life experiences and how that has affected them, or that I have no interest in what people think or how they feel - just that what someone's sexual orientation is is not the basis for whether I will or won't interact, or be friends with, or work with someone.

    Women, regardless of their orientation, have always been at risk for sexual assault by men; being aware of those risks, and sometimes being in danger of attack, or actually being attacked, doesn't make a woman a wholesale man-hater.  

    What I know about the pedophilia issue is that I believe the research suggests that most pedophiles are not gay, that pedophilia is not about sexual attraction.

    Hope this clarifies a few things, and we can all move forward.


    Parent

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#140)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    As pointed out above (none / 0) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    many young women are abused by straight men and we don't spend our entire lives making the entirety of the straight male species pay as a result.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#33)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    you should.  Maybe it's time to start with the "straight panic defense" and "preemptive strike" doctrine for heterosexual women.

    Parent
    Spoken like a true man-hater... (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    whatever made you that way I am truly sorry Emma, but we're all not the devil.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    Kdog, take your man-hating crap accusations elsewhere.  I've done nothing you, said nothing to you, done nothing around you, to justify this level of hatred directed at me.

    Parent
    Hatred? (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    Where did you get that Emma?  I got nothing but love for everybody in this here community, you are no exception.

    If I misinterpreted the tone of your comment I sincerely apologize...but it came off as "y chromosome=bad" imo...and that helps nobody.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    called me a "man-hater".  That's not funny.  It's not informed commentary. It's hate speech.  It's meant to denigrate and attack me as a person, not respond to anything I've said substantively.  It's homophobic and misogynist.

    Parent
    Ok... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    I'm done.  Enjoy your day.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#56)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    I'm the unreasonable one because I won't lie down and let you call me names.

    Parent
    Where did Kdog (none / 0) (#97)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    say something homophobic?  Point it out please.  Same with misogynist.  

    Parent
    See comment #40 (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:40:31 AM EST
    "Man-hater" is an odious put-down, most typically used against women who are feminists; and even more pervasively against women who are lesbians (as is Emma, the woman kdog called a "true man-hater").  

    Parent
    Also, people respond to trauma differently (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    ... and the healing process is unpredictable too. If a victim of any kind of assault bears a harsh and general resentment afterwards, s/he's entitled to that without being accused of being a hater.

    As for the issue of being looked at in the shower by a gay teammate, that whole context is dumb, given the kind of focus that's needed just to compete at an elite level.

    I'd be astonished if one gay athlete was so relentlessly hitting on a teammate (of any orientation), or so lasciviously ogling them that it made the whole shower uncomfortable.

    Accepting a drink or buying one is a convivial choice and doesn't equate to harassment or assault in any context. Same goes for being hit on as a one-time proposition, where you can just say no thanks.

    I mean, it's not you can't say "no thanks" to an impending rapist and hear, "Oh, my bad, pardon me -- I'll go rape someone else."

    Not to trivialize it but let's be realistic.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    I am sorry for whatever trauma you have suffered...but the male sex as a whole was not responsible...an individual or individuals were.

    I can understand, I carry a prejudice against cops for (relatively mild) trauma I have suffered...and that is just as foolish a prejudice.  Individuals were responsible, not all those who wear badges.  It is an easy trap to fall into and something we are best served to try and remain concious of...though like many things, easier said than done.  

    This human nature failing of grouping individuals up and judging them as a whole is a tough nut to crack.

    Parent

    Defending an assault victim's response to trauma (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:38:19 PM EST
    ... including general resentment (as a part of the healing process) doesn't make me a hater either.

    The last trauma I had was a blown knee and I didn't hate the dojo for it.

    If your path to dealing with police is through ideology, that's your way and may not work for others.

    Also, you do acknowledge that your trauma was mild, so at least you're aware that degree has a lot to do with it. I hope you'll be more understanding about another person's individuality too, rather than see it as a "failing".

    Parent

    Prejudice... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    of certain sub-groups of the human race isn't a human failing?  It is an understandable failing at times, especially for those who have suffered great trauma at the hands of an indivivual within a sub-group, but a human failing it is.  What else would you call prejudice?

    Parent
    You're grossly misapplying the word 'prejudice' (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    ... in relation to a victim of assault here.

    Prejudice is pre-judgment.

    A victim of assault in a POST traumatic situation is in a vulnerable state of healing/recovery and the process may be long or short, and may include (natural) and generalized resentment. Again, that's not a "failure" on the part of the victim who likely has a boatload of chaos to sort out.

    Calling it a human failing just doesn't fit the situation, though it might work within the confines of your world view. FWIW, I don't think it fits the LGBTs/athletes' dilemmas either.

    Parent

    Well, to be fair, (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    the same goes for the many young men who are abused by gay and/or power tripping men.

    Parent
    It gets into a chicken or egg (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    discussion scenario in some ways..

    How much of the abuse and exploitation is the result of repression due to societal pressures and how much of the repression is a reaction to abuse and exploitation..

    Or, is what amounts male rape just a form of violent acting out of power fantasies only peripherally related to issues of 'identity'?

    These are thorny issues.

    Parent

    I find it (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    hard to believe that men raping boys is about sexual repression of homosexuals.  If that's the case, how do you explain men raping girls?  Sexual repression of heterosexuals?

    I think it's a huge mistake to connect pedophilia to homosexuality in any way.  There's no reason to connect them at all, none.

    Parent

    I dont think there's any question (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    that you can be hetero and repressed and, or traumatized to the point that your modes of 'expression' become less than healthy.

    Parent
    I don't disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:28:55 PM EST
    I think that pedophilia is more than/different than a less than healthy mode of sexual expression.  And I think it's wholly unrelated to one's sexual orientation as gay or straight.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    most of the research out there backs you up

    Parent
    Thanks jb (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:35:43 PM EST
    It's worth citing a part of the research you linked to:
    Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.

    In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children...



    Parent
    It falls into the barbaric (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    and barbarically egocentric end of the "less than healthy" scale.

    For me, words fail with this stuff.

    Parent

    Ok (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    I see the point.  I don't know enough to disagree or agree about that point.  Still, I think it's got nothing to with sexual orientation, re:  being gay or straight.

    Parent
    We've always been nuerotic (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    and ninety % in the dark about sex and how exactly it fits into the larger scheme of things, imo.

    Parent
    Paging Dr Wilhelm Reich! (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    Yeah, I know he had a Victorian hetero bias, but he had a lot things right vis a vis the genesis of sexual politics and violence in society, imho.

    Parent
    Great point. (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    it's the root cause of (none / 0) (#117)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    homophobia in extremely homosocial situations?

    IMO your argument as applied to women would mean that women feel uncomfortable around men and have a harder time dealing with heteronormativity because of that.

    Still, I do see your general point.  The aggressiveness toward gender difference, women, and gays inherent in homophobia stems from men not wanting to seem weak.  And the reality is, that many times in their life, men ARE weak.  Boys slightly older than other boys abuse the younger ones all the time.  And as you say boys are also abused by older men.

    I think homophobic actions and words are an effort to compensate for that weakness.  2 cents...

    Parent

    I agree with your conclusion, (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 07:02:22 PM EST
    and I think it ties in with my comments pretty well with the proviso that "homophobia" has (many, probably) more than just "a" cause.

    I only take exception to this sentence:

    IMO your argument as applied to women would mean that women feel uncomfortable around men and have a harder time dealing with heteronormativity because of that.
    I spent a lot of time discussing this very thing with CST upthread...

    Parent
    more than one cause (none / 0) (#122)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    well, I agree with that.  

    I saw some of your comments with CST but not all before I wrote my post...I skimmed most of them.  I thought your comment warranted some support.  Not talking about the sexual abuse that men experience just creates an environment where the only way to deal with it is to perpetuate it - in verbal forms, cultural forms, and in molestation and sexual abuse of a minor by the originally victimized person themselves.

    I say this because an example comes to mind.  A much older friend of mine grew up in a rather poor urban neighborhood.  When he was a child he and a buddy were cornered by a group of older boys and forced to perform oral sex on them.  My friend had his own issues stemming from that - he internalized it.  But his buddy at the time later raped a very young teenage girl and got into all sorts of trouble.

    Men abusing men leads to men abusing other men AND women...we need to acknowledge such things more openly to end these kinds of cycles.

    Parent