*this was written earlier in the day–the wireless I’m “borrowing” has been down for a while…
A neighbor of mine just came over to ask my mom’s opinion and mine on a picture collage gift she is working on for her students. She is a teacher at the local high school. As I was walking down the stairs, she held up the picture frame collage and asked, “Is this gay?” I was kind of appalled but immediately retorted, “Don’t use that word.” She stammered back, “Well, I didn’t mean it like that…” as I interjected, “You meant it as in, stupid, right?” “Yeah,” she responded. I then proceeded to tell her that using the word “gay” like that was mean and disrespectful. The conversation awkwardly ended there as we then carried on in small talk about how I liked the collage. I went back up to my room (where I am now) and sat thinking about what else I should have said (what I am still doing now). I feel glad that I confidently interjected at her careless remark, but I know I didn’t do enough. Is she still going to use that word like that? I feel as though I did not really give her a well thought out reasoning on why she shouldn’t. These thoughts will linger, but I’m glad that I said something. At least I know I made her think. As she was leaving, she told my mom to tell me that she was sorry and didn’t mean what she said. I thought that was a good sign, but I’m still not certain if I really effectively got through to her in any way. I have a feeling she was trying to sound “hip” in terms of using the lingo probably found around the halls of high school. She probably thought she was relating to me or something! It’s scary for me to think that a high school teacher is using that type of language though. I’m sure she doesn’t use it in the classroom, but still. Sigh.
I got my second bought of borderline heterosexism when my mom came into my room, relaying what my neighbor said on the way out. My mom’s more conservative roots (which seem to keep popping up in this three week stint that I am living at home until I’m back in good ole Milwaukee) shone through when she stated (my rephrasing), “Well, why is that word used to describe homosexuals now? It used to be a pleasant word, just meaning ‘happy.’” With the way she said it, I was just waiting for her to complain that ‘teh gays’ were out to take over the English language. I calmly explained that words change and are shaped by the collective meanings we give them. The important thing is to recognize the ethical implications of the way words are used and by whom and in what context. I know that she realizes this. Her comment about the word “gay” was just less thought out than it should have been. As we were discussing, she commented on how she does not like the way some people use the word “retarded” these days and I completely sympathize with her on that point. I just hope she understands where I’m coming from as well.
Does anyone have any similar stories or ideas of how to effectively confront situations like these? I’d love to know so I can be more prepared in responding next time. Thanks.
Filed under: heterosexism
Dashaway
femmemeister
Bento
Oh wow, once again the sexual revoltuion mindset shows that it also has it’s own dogmatic orthodoxy. I suppose that if you said something blasphemous like “God D*** it!”, and somone told you “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain!” You’d think you had just been oppressed by the forces of patriarchy and the religous right to an extent not seen since the Middle Ages and you’d be awfuly upset about it, maybe you’d even blog about the experience, but when you are the one trying to shame somone into marching in lockstep with your world view it is something to really relish.
Please tell me how I am wrong here and how your situation would be differant than the one I just described?
Frankly I’m with your mom, the word gay once meant happy, and then people redefined it, since you think that words are “shaped by the collective meanings that we give them” then I say all is fair and love and war (and vocab) and we are all free to use words how we want. It seems rather silly if you want to try to freeze the devolpment of language and stunt it to fit some sort of political goal (or even mroe likley, just for some personal ego stroking.)
Furthermore, I am glad this person you confonted is a teacher, further proof to what I have been noticing, some-how people are making it thorugh the cracks of the PC education establishment.
I have never used the phrase “that’s so gay,” to describe something stupid, but I think I am going to start, not because I am upset with gay people, but because I am upset with the people like you and your double-standards, it will be a great profiling system, I now have a very simple way to figure out which people are laid back and which ones have an impulse to be a control freak. In fact, I am going to redifine the word “gay” my definition is not “happy” or “homosexual” my definition will simply mean “somone of any sexual orientation or mood who likes to impose their will on others with smug arrogance rather than charity or tollerance.”
Thus, you are so gay.
Thanks for your snide remarks. Although this may sound sarcastic, I really do appreciate them, just wish they weren’t so snide-y.
In the scenario you describe about someone saying “god-damnit,” I’m not going to tell you how one would be wrong in stating their belief that it was “blasphemous” but I will tell you how I think the situations are different.
First off, some people believe in God, some people don’t. It’s an abstract concept–a belief. It’s not a matter of being or a matter of having a practical, tangible nature. Being gay isn’t a belief, it is a state of being, so when you call something “gay” and mean it as “stupid,” you’re attacking a person. It’s the way the word is used. Someone using the term “goddamnit” might show you that that person has a different belief structure than you (one that doesn’t include the belief in God or the belief that using that term is blashpemous), but they are not actively attacking your personhood.
I think someone has every right to state their opinion that using the word “goddamnit” is blasphemous, but since you’d be the only one to believe in the blasphemy of it, your attempts would probably be in vain. If I ask someone not to use the word “gay” in a derogatory way, their only response countering me would be to say that they thought it was right or okay for them to use the word to attack certain people for simply being who they are and I think that is hardly ethical treatment for one to engage in. And to deny this attack on one’s personhood, one would have to deny the fact that “gay” is understood to pertain to “homosexuality” these days, which would just be a huge lie to oneself.
People will disagree with me, I’ll disagree with myself at times, but I do think there is a definite difference in the two situations.
Moving on. I said that words are shaped by the COLLECTIVE meanings we give to them. You can use a word however you want, but it’s not going to go straight from sender to receiver the exact way you intend to send it. That is because we construct language in a way that uses agreed upon meanings for words to that we can understand each other and generate meaning. You creating your own meaning is not going to hold up in the greater society. I’m not stunting language here, but recognizing the dynamic nature of it. As I said–what is important is understanding the ethical parameters of language and how we use it and in what context.
I’ll attempt to engage with your last snide remark–your view that I imposed my will on others with smug arrogance rather than charity or tolerance. Ya know, I’m looking for ways to share my views with others without seeming smug or arrogant and I think that’s what I was asking for in the final lines of my post where I ask for ways to effectively confront this type of behavior. You’re right, it’s stunting to simply brush someone off with my own arrogance (which I don’t think I did). I need to find a way to connect with other individuals about this topic and encourage the responsible use of words in our language in a way that does not come off as overly judgmental. To do this, I need to go back in my own history and understand why I used to use the word “gay” in a similar fashion and then realize all that I have learned since then that has impacted me to more fully conceive of the moral implications of using “gay” to mean dumb or stupid.
As a gay person, I’d like to state that I don’t think that the collage and I had anything in common. But I digress…
Using “Republican” or “Christian” or “autistic” instead of gay in the “omg Sarah, that outfit is SO ugly! She’s totally Christian for wearing it!” way would not fly for our snide-y commenter, am I wrong? So what makes it ok to use gay? Dashaway mentioned the use of “retarded.” There is no difference whatsoever in the offense level of calling something retarded and calling something gay when you think it’s stupid. None whatsoever. What if people started saying “ew Dashaway, that collage is breast cancer!”? You get the point.
And as an athiest, I always make sure to watch my tongue and not say “God Dammit” in front of my religious peers because I know it offends them. I don’t believe in God as far as I can throw a bible, but I’m still respectful of my peers’ identities as religious people (or potentially religious people, when I’m around strangers). It would be nice if they afforded me the same respect and removed “that’s so gay” from their vocabularies, because I sure as hell am not ugly, stupid, or otherwise un-cool.
This can be construed as entirely inappropriate, but it’s a catchy song that mocks everything it can.
Dashaway is my homegirl.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zluCpm93vfg&hl=en]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zluCpm93vfg
Dashaway, sorry for the snide tone and thanks for your well thought out response. Though I can’t stand by the tone in my remarks I think the general gist of what I said still applies.
It was interesting how you said how people having a belief in God is more or less a personal choice, whereas being Gay is “isn’t a belief, it is a state of being,”
This is the polar opposite of what some people might say, some might say how God is the ultimate reality (I think Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Ignatius of Loyola would make this point to name a few) and I suppose these sort of people would be offended at your notion that it is just a little personal flourish to be kept on the dl. Of course you are free to toss them under the bus.
I am plenty willing to accept people at their word when they say they were always gay/born gay, etc. I see no need to chalenge people on that of course there are plenty who would, who would simply call it a “lifestyle choice,” I don’t agree with those allegations but it is their right, though I can sympathize if you and like minded people don’t care for that.
You say, “People will disagree with me, I’ll disagree with myself at times, but I do think there is a definite difference in the two situations.”
So you are tossing around a moral absolute, it would seem? You defend what is precious to you and discard what you oppose, almost a sort of good v. evil paradigm. This is interesting. I would figure that everything is fair game in a true “liberal” sense, this gets back to what I said eariler about the dogma and orthodoxy of the sexual revolution.
Anyway, I guess in essence we all have pretty expansive free-speech rights and attacking gay people or religion or anything for that matter, is fairly protected, though of course we are all welcome to try to change the culture via persusasion and dialouge. I see no need to disrespect religious people or gays (or gay religious people for that matter) in my speaking and I sort of gage all it along the lines of deceny towards others and don’t differntiate between the situations when common courtesy is the issue. Likewise I don’t use or care for the term “retarded” so there is no need to try to through that at me, in fact, I am rather saddend by the fact that the abortion rate is so high for children diagnosed in the womb with downs syndrome, choice…but I am getting off topic (though it would be interesting to see a post on that some day on this blog.)
Storm, the situation you lay out “does not fly” with me to the extent that the people in glass houses shouldn’t lob stones rule would mandate that I am one of the last people who ought to be weighing in on Sarah’s outfit or anyone’s for that matter, but point taken. Also, thank you for showing respect for your religious peers, you have actually set a good example for me in terms of the “that’s so gay” phrase. I know this might not sound sincere but I mean it.