You're viewing a single thread.
Yes, blame the victims instead of the aggressors. This will surely solve the problem!
Wut
Those pushing the sexist zeitgeist are seldom the ones suffering from it. As in, generally speaking, it's not an average guy that sits there and thinks, "man I wish I could wear a dress right now without being ridiculed.". Pretty sure that's what they mean.
Joke's still funny though because it's pointing at how stupid the sexist zeitgeist even is. Even if it's leveraging a bad thing, it's aware of and making fun of the bad thing. That's what a good real-world joke does. No one celebrates George Carlin for saying nice things.
Ehhhhh. Victims? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that they're innocent. How many of those dudes who are pressured by society then villify and hate those who are gay? How many times have LGBTQ+ folk been hurt because someone was upset about the simple perception of being gay? Fuck sakes there's a legal argument called Gay Panic that has absolutely worked where straight people freak that someone is gay and then attacks time because they were shocked or surprised. That's just the violence. How many men say that they don't wanna be seen as gay and then bully gay folks in that exact same sentence? They will then put down gay folks to make themselves seem more masculine and heterosexual.
Just because you're a victim of societies bullshit doesn't mean that you get a free pass to hate. More over, if you want that to stop then you have to be the one to help stop it. You don't get to shrug and go along with it while saying "But I'm just a victimmmmm" if you're not trying to stop it or help.
I agree, I'm just explaining what they were complaining about.
Remember, I'm replying to "Wut?" What part of that informs me that you are aware of what they could be thinking?
Oh I know. If that came off directed or angry at you then that was completely unintentional and you have my sincere apologies. Was talking about the idea in general.
Uh, even with the clarification, I'm still confused at what you're trying to say. You seem very triggered by this, and I'm not sure why.
I'm not the one disagreeing with the joke, so your triggered comment is rather pathetic.
The joke is aware that the sexist zeitgeist is stupid. That's the point.
I didn't look at the username before replying. And I'm not triggered. Not sure where you got that from.
The problem with this viewpoint is that in this case, these people are both the victim AND the aggressor. It's an entirely self-made problem for them, which is precisely what being mocked here.
Hey man, what do mean?
If men don't do XYZ because they're afraid of being perceived as gay, shame the people who have created a society where being perceived as gay is something to be afraid of. The men here saying "I'd like to carry a reusable bag but am afraid of the consequences of people thinking I'm gay" are victims here.
First of all, I find the premise that other people would think that dubious at best, but let's assume it's true. What are the consequences of someone else thinking you're gay? Are you the victim of thought-crime? This sounds more like self victimization.
Its called social stigma. Its been a thing ever since socialization has been a thing. Social pressures are a very real thing. Its not like men woke up one day and decided "you know what? I'm gonna be homophobic today, sounds like a real trip!"
Obviously personal choice is a factor, and a major one at that... but its far from the only one.
Lot of irrelevant content here.
I find the premise that other people would think that dubious at best
Not relevant. What matters is that the men surveyed felt like they would be thought of that way.
What are the consequences of someone else thinking you're gay?
That also isn't a rebuttal to my argument. What matters is that these men feel like they'll be thought of as gay and they feel like that's a bad thing. These feelings don't form in a vacuum. They're taught and reinforced to people in society over generations.
Let's suppose that the poll said, "8/10 of men are afraid of wearing slim jeans out of fear of being called gay." Would it not be the obvious conclusion that they're victims of the patriarchy^1. Neither of the two actions are exclusive to being gay in any way, but society teaches individuals to associate the two.
- Patriarchy not being the worship of male over female but the masculine over the feminine. See why traditionally feminine-acting men achieve less success than masculine men, or masculine women over feminine women.
You're correct in sentiment, but the joke is fully aware of that. It's not a joke at all if this is just the simple facts of life. It's a joke because he's self-victimizing over the dumbest shit. No one is sitting there ready to shame the guy if he pulls out a reusable bag. He's doing it to himself. You want us to shame HIM for victimizing himself??
I mean, unironically yes, but please be aware of what you're saying. There is no attacker to yell at here. Shaming someone for attempting to be normal is a GREAT way to twist them up further.
The joke is contingent on linking completely unrelated factors. If you don't, the joke doesn't make sense. Its based on accepting the premise that sexuality has literally anything to do with environmentalism or responsibility.
Sure, its a premise posited by those mired in toxic masculinity... but why accept that premise? That is the core of the joke, accepting a premise that is wholly false.
No, it's a premise based in the reality of a sexist culture. The fuck commentary do you think it's trying to make?
Not the person you're replying to, but I made the original comment in this thread. I made another reply about how this meme's conclusion is flawed, but its premise is too. And it (inadvertently, I don't think OP had any malicious intentions) erases centuries of homophobia in the process.
The basic argument being made here hinges on the fact that the person in the top picture (Louis XIV, I belive but I was never good with monarchy) is wearing items associated today as being feminine and says that modern men have regressed in their sexual security for being too afraid to dress that way, but ignores the fact that those items didn't have those connotations at the time. It isn't like King Louis said "yeah I know these shoes make me look gay, but I'm going to wear them anyway." It's a false comparison between two tome period, attitudes, societies, etc. being made.
Yes, but that is obviously reading WAY too much in to the anachronism. The point is NOT that those were normal back then, but that they magically aren't today.
The juxtaposition is the ENTIRE point: Sex-based fashion (and most other things) IS NOT intrinsic to the sexes. If you analyze it by removing it from modern context, you no longer have ANY juxtaposition to point at, and thus miss the entire point.
The POINT is that it was different back then vs today. The entire point is to demonstrate that gender expression changes COMPLETELY over time, showing that it is a social construct and not intrinsic to the sexes what so ever.
The point of the message is reinforced by the fact that the modern guy is twisting themselves up over "completely unrelated" things. You guys are literally complaining about things that reinforce the main point.
That's projection of insecurity rather than the fault of a society. Nobody would call a guy gay for using a reusable bag, except for the guy who's afraid of other people doing that.
I would argue they're the victims and the ones making society that way at the same time.
When I was a kid “that’s gay” and calling people “fags” was very very common. Even in The Office Micheal calls stuff “faggy”.
It was pretty heavily shamed and my dad was very worried my brothers or I might turn out gay if we played with our sister’s toys. I had an uncle say to be careful or we’d turn out with “limp wrists” and he did that stereotypical gay wrist gesture.
And does anyone else remember “metrosexual”? I got called that because I liked wearing nice clothes and putting product in my hair (growing up the expectation in the town I was from was that men tucked in their shirts and made themselves look nice, so that being borderline gay confused the heck out of me).
Nowadays I never ever hear that kind of language (except for online trolls), and that family is very much fine with LGBTQ people (except still fairly confused on the trans parts).
Progress has been slow buts better than I thought it would be as a kid — even the Pope preaches acceptance of gay people (though this gets him some hate).
Yeah as a trans woman I was beaten up for being feminine as a kid. Nothing like how it was for older generations, but I definitely remember it. I remember learning to fear femininity in any form including looking nice in a polished masculine way because it was seen as gay and queerness came with ostracism or at least some people being uncomfortable with you.
It’s easy to forget that that era was a thing, but jeez I remember so many jokes about how anyone who drove a Prius had to be gay, ironically from the same people who constantly whined about gas prices.
I'm so sorry you had to go through that, I was a straight kid and got pushed around for the mere accusations, I can't imagine how it feels to be beaten up for who you actually are inside.
For what it's worth, one of my best friends is trans and all my family mentioned above was very nice to her at my wedding, so at least in some circles people really have changed (my family was never hateful, just ignorant before). I wish I could say it was universal.
A friend of mine's brother came out to his parents and before they had processed it (they're accepting now), they blamed it on my friend's refusal to include him when my friend played football and such other manly pursuits.
Yeah people don't seem to remember just how accepted and extreme homophobia was. That fag word you mentioned? That was used at least once in nearly every episode of Will and Grace. A primetime sitcom. The vast majority of times it was said was also by a straight character, not by Will or Jack. Was also said in a derogatory tone or at least a shameful one. Was one of the reasons why W&G was loathed by a lot of the community. The gay characters were stereotypes that were used to laugh at but had no furthering of themselves. It's also why the revival failed so miserably. After 20 years it was made abundantly clear that the gay characters were flat and 2D.
Basically the flagship show for gay guys in the early 2000s was made with a surprising amount of homophobia baked in. That's how bad shit was. Even when we got what we asked for and when a lot of us were super stoked about it, we were happy about homophobia simply because it was still less than what was before. Things hve gotten a lot better but it's still pretty bad. Constantly reminded that I'm different and lesser.
If hairy sweaty men were not so monumentally attractive then I'd shred my gay card without a moment's hesitation.
I think I have to give some of those shows a pass, simply because as a small town straight kid Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy were the first gay people I ever saw.
I distinctly remember my brother put them on as a joke and then we all sat and watched them and learned gay people weren't that different.
I'm probably going to regret this comment but I think "homophobia" is too strong of a world for things like W&G. The people who wrote and acted in the show weren't "persistently and unreasonably afraid" of Gay people. What the show did was play on stereotypes but it used them in ways that were not meant to be directly and intentionally hurtful. It made the show possible and allowed a wide audience to be exposed to Gays as normal and human. It also gave the many people who didn't know any gay men a face, Eric McCormack's, instead of whatever image they had in their head.
W&G wasn't high art but it was a decent show for its time and it served to advance the cause as it existed in the late 90s and early 2000s.
In fact I'd argue that W&G was done in the same vein as shows like "Sanford and Sons" and "The Jeffersons"! Through their existence and popularity they were able introduce and then humanize a previous out group. It's easy to view them years later and see them as flat, cringe, or naive but they were the shows that were possible at the time and the good they did far outweighs the decades later criticisms.
I know its tough, as a society we have so much farther to go, but don't lose sight of how much progress has been made. We've come a very long way in the last 35 years.
Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people Merriam-Webster
Homophobia can take many different forms, including negative attitudes and beliefs about, aversion to, or prejudice against bisexual, lesbian, and gay people. - Planned Parenthood
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who identify or are perceived as being lesbian, gay or bisexual. Wikipedia
Negative attitudes towards homosexual people and homosexuality which may be manifested in discrimination, hostile behaviour, or hate crimes. The term was adopted in 1972 by George Weinberg (b.1935), an American psychologist. The use of ‘phobia’ has been criticized as implying a pathological and irrational fear rather than a form of prejudice analogous to racism. The term is sometimes reserved for more extreme forms reflecting hatred and revulsion, the term heterosexism being favoured in other cases. Homophobic attitudes have been associated with conservative ideologies and authoritarian personalities. Extreme homophobia is often attributed to unconscious homosexual desires but it can also be due to ignorance or function as a means of gaining approval from a reference group. Institutional homophobia is reflected in laws, policies, practices, and the history of invisibility of gay people in the mass media. One theory is that the social function of homophobia is to enforce rigid gender distinctions (see also heteronormativity). Internalized homophobia refers to gay and lesbian people themselves adopting negative attitudes about homosexuality from socialization into a homophobic culture, leading to denial or self-hatred because they feel that they cannot live up to dominant cultural gender expectations. Oxford Reference
Categorizing homophobia as simply "persistently and unreasonably afraid" ignores a truly enormous amount of what homophobia actually is. W&G playing on stereotypes isn't inherently bad. As you point out, there are many sitcoms and other shows which will play on stereotypes. Where the homophobia comes from is how it treated those gay characters. Notably that they were treated almost entirely as set dressing. Will and Jack are completely unimportant to the show. No decisions they make have any lasting impact or importance to the plot. In fact, their decisions are barely followed at all. In Season 1 or 2, Will loses his biggest client and as a result has to shut down his firm and start over at a new one. When he does, his boss ends up getting involved in more of Karen and Graces episodes than he does in any Will episode. When Will has a problem with his brother they do two episodes on it, mention it once in a later season and then never mention it again. Meanwhile Grace has multiple episodes about her problems with her mother. Even the episode where Will comes out for the first time to anyone? It's entirely about Grace.
How Will felt is used for comedic set dressing while Grace is the only one who's focused on for any emotional impact. In the later seasons, Will ends up in a relationship with a cop and it goes poorly. Again there is like no time given to this. In fact let's talk about relationships in general. How many relationships can you remember that Will had? There's Michael, a character who is only ever seen once but is referenced constantly to belittle Will. There's Vince, the cop boyfriend that I mentioned. That's fucking it. At least for the 8 season long original run. What's insane is that Will has had more female romantic partners than he has multi-episode relationships. Seriously. He dated his high school best friend (who wanted Wills babies which caused a whole thing with Grace being a controlling freak), he dated Grace and then he had a one night stand with a random woman after he told Grace he was gay. Which, of course, Grace immediately makes about her and gets angrier at will.
The Gay characters of Will & Grace are used entirely for comedic purposes and have no depth or important to the show meanwhile the straight characters have endless season long arcs about their relationships (Grace and Leo, Karen and Stanley are just two blatant examples). They are completely flat and two-dimensional and was an outright betrayal to the gay community by repeatedly reinforcing stereotypes and abandoning the gay community for the sake of a laugh. Anything that could be seen as even slightly subversive is immediately washed away as it's turned into a joke.
I love Will & Grace. I really do. Having that representation was important for me when I was younger and was important overall but it must be equally as important to remember that Will & Grace undercut the gay community at every chance to make straight people laugh.
Will & Grace undercut the gay community at every chance to make straight people laugh.
Yes it did and I thank you for expressing it in such a clear way; it's what I was floundering towards with my own comment. Still, this is the pattern of the early shows centered around minorities; the stereotypes are played like a banjo with the intent of making the show popular with a wider audience. With that exposure comes tolerance and what normally follows tolerance is acceptance.
It would have been fantastic if those shows would have been made to the modern standard but a show built to a 2023 standard would absolutely not have been playing on NBC in 1998. It wouldn't even have been made let alone been playing in a PrimeTime slot. The wider audience simply wasn't ready and wouldn't have accepted such a show.
Homophobia
Respectfully we may have to agree to disagree on this. What you linked are validly sourced but IMO they've been updated so far that they've lost their meaning. The word "phobia" has a set clinical definition and what we're discussing simply doesn't fit.
Harvard Medical defines a phobia like this: "A phobia is a persistent, excessive, unrealistic fear of an object, person, animal, activity or situation. It is a type of anxiety disorder. A person with a phobia either tries to avoid the thing that triggers the fear, or endures it with great anxiety and distress. "
Take that pages example of Agoraphobia - "Agoraphobia is a fear of being in public places where it would be difficult or embarrassing to make a sudden exit. "
In short having a "phobia" requires fear and that fear cannot be temporary nor can it be reasonable. So then Homophobia is when someone has an unreasonable and persistent fear of Homosexuals. Those elements are simply not present in Will & Grace.
To press the point there simply isn't a grammatically or clinically valid function that downgrades the meaning of the word "phobia" when you prepend it with "Homo"; the word is being misused.
The problematic behavior is real enough but what is often labelled as homophobia is really bigotry or prejudice. Bigotry being intolerance that is inconsistent with facts, while Prejudice is holding a preconceived judgement or conviction. Side note: Prejudice isn't strictly negative, one can be prejudiced for as well as against.
So shows like Will&Grace were watched by people with prejudice but it gave them exposure that removed their preconceptions. This shifted many people away from their prejudice and what's left are the Bigots, who know what the truth is and don't care, and the Homophobic, people who are actually and for real afraid of Homosexuals.
It may seem academic but I think these distinctions matter because grouping all of these people together stymies communication and hinders progress. The Phobic literally cannot control their fear, at least not without therapy and possibly drugs. The Prejudiced are simply ignorant and holding an opinion based on that ignorance, their prejudice can be corrected by educating them and removing their ignorance. The Bigoted are the real problem, they are the ones who've been educated but refuse to change their opinions or behavior.
The Bigots are the problem and they need to addressed clearly and directly.
I'm sorry but you are simply wrong on the homophobia aspect and the definition therein. You are hyperfocusing on the 'phobia' part of the word and insisting that it only means a clinical fear. This is simply inaccurate and you do not have anything to back you up. You simply say "In my opinion, these extremely credible sources (including one that specifically works with LGBTQ+ folks) don't know what homophobia means." You're just wrong. There's no discussion to be had here. It's like you're trying to say 1+1=3.
I'm having a hard time taking anything you say seriously when you're trying to supplement a known, agreed upon and confirmed definition with what your personal opinion is. That's not how reality works (at least for anyone who lives in reality) and I have no interest in rewarding such behavior by continuing any conversation with you. Goodbye.