Homophobic Ad?

[cboy4]

Some Internet forums (and GLAAD constituents) are ablaze over what appears to be Nike’s newest ad campaign in the latest issue of CMYK Magazine. The ad copy reads:

“THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN GOING TO THE BALLET
IS GOING TO THE BALLET TO WATCH YOUR SON”

:puke: :puke:

The bottom right hand corner reads “RAISE A CHAMPION, NIKE KIDS”

However, the ad did not come from Nike. The “advertisement” is actually the work of an art design student. Nike had no part in the creation of this “ad.”

I spoke with CMYK’s publisher, Curtis Clarkson. He did not realize that the student’s ad could be viewed as anti-gay, but he does now. Clarkson has “great remorse” and will be issuing a letter of apology shortly (check back here for the contents of that letter). Clarkson will also include an article in the next issue of CMYK about the incident.

[tekisui]

1. WTF?

How can they claim that they did not realize that shit was anti-gay?

That was obviously its purpose. :wtf:

[meegbear]

2. He didn't realize the ad could be viewed as anti-gay ...

my Aunt Fannie.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

3. Just idiotic.

Keep us posted.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The ad is ignorant, but not necessarily homophobic

Dancers are highly trained athletes with more control over their bodies than any runner or basketball player. I doubt there are many testosterone soaked "macho studs" who could keep up with that kind of training for a week, much less make a career out of it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. I agree. Stupid but not an intended slur at this point

[Two Americas]

59. how could that be?

The ad would have no message then. Yet obviously it does have a message.

Clearly the message is that it is normal - understandable, that it goes without saying - for a Dad to not want his son to be a ballet dancer. Why not? Let's not be naive here.

Don't be one of "them" - be a champion. No one who was an adolescent male in this society could possibly be unaware of what that is all about, or unfamiliar with the aggressive pressure to conform to a rigid masculine stereotype, and what the alternative to that is imagined to be.

[xchrom]

5. it's homophobic and it's stupid. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Does being a dancer automatically make you gay?

Are you calling all dancers gay?

Honestly, I CAN very well see how the ad could be viewed as (and likely is) anti-gay. I just wanted to raise very, very slippery slope issue that you're now stereotyping another whole group of people unfairly.

[cboy4]

8. I'm not stereotyping shit.

I'm posting an article and asking a question.

And there's no question the student that crated the ad is a homophobe.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. No need to be hostile, but do you not see the problem with the statement?

And I apologize if I implied that you particularly said anything. The article you posted, however, did "stereotype shit".

[bluedawg12]

14. art work a male leaping the air with bent wrists and pink bow on Nike

suggests an effeminate male and the use of ballet is code for gay.

If going to the ballet is bad, fine, not everyone likes ballet.

But what does watching your son have to do with making it worse? Well, look to the art work.

The only thing worse than going to the opera, is watching your sone sing as a tenor, doesn't work, and we all know why.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. My point is not that the ad isn't homophobic - I say that it very likely is

And I only use the qualifier "very likely" because, not being GLBT, I don't deem myself the arbiter of these things.

The point is, in attacking the ad as homophobic, do we also not run the risk of labeling all male dancers as gay? That would be stereotyping, any which way you choose it.

For the record however, neither dancer has a "bent wrist" and there is also a dancer covered in dark blue "ribbon" (which does not accurately describe the lines emanating from the ad). As such, I fail to see the code for "gay" as you describe it.

[bluedawg12]

22. No, our reaction is not the problem, the ad, copy and art work are!

They depict shame at having a son be a ballet dancer.
They depict a male in an effiminate position, and the pink bow on the Nikeis for those who might have missed the slur.

Please explain to me, why the only thing worse thah going to a ballet is watching your son on the stage?

Why is that worse?

What wrong with having a son be a ballet dancer?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. You're missing the point entirely. I am NOT supporting the ad in any way.

The ad is wrong for all of the various reasons described in the thread. There is no doubt about that. I implore you to stop implying that I am supporting this ad - it is a very, very false depiction of my statement.

The problem I have is with people saying that this is automatically homophobic to the exclusion of other things. This implies that all male dancers are gay, which is a false stereotype. The problems with the ad go beyond that - namely that this is anti-art, anti-dancing, anti-male, anti-female, pro-gender roles, and a host of other issues that I probably am not even considering at this point.

Still, you are inaccurately describing the ad by saying it has pink "bows" anywhere on it, and you are also missing the dancer covered in dark blue in a pose that I would argue is much less "effiminate", although I would really disagree with that depiction for either photo (that you would call it such might reflect more on YOUR views of male dancers than the ad's creator). What do YOU have against particular dancing male poses?

[bluedawg12]

26. Again, it's not about you, nor about our reaction to the ad. It's the ad.

Look at the ad again, what is that pink bow on the shoe? or is it a pink butterfly that looks like a bow?

Also, I asked a simple question: why does having a son be a ballet dancer make going to the ballet"even worse?"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. I just don't understand why you're pushing the question when the answer is entirely obvious

There is not a goddamn thing wrong with having a son be a ballet dancer. Not in any way, shape or form. How is that answer not obvious from my statements that the ad is probably anti-gay, anti-male, anti-female, etc.?

And my comments ARE about our reaction to the ad. I am MAKING it part of the issue, because it's important that we put up a mirror to ourselves from time to time, and I believe that this is one of those moments. If you don't wish to be a part of that discussion - that's perfectly fine. I never forced participation.

My question is this: Why is the primary reaction to this ad that it is anti-gay instead of anti-arts? Or anti-male? Or pro-gender roles? Why are WE automatically equating dancing males being bad with sexuality instead of the other issues?

You keep pointing out the pink ribbon - but isn't pink typically associated with women's issues and not exclusively associated with gay issues?

Do you not see the harmfulness in your reaction? Do you not see how YOU associated being a male dancer with being gay without being explicitly and unquestionably lead to that conclusion?

[bluedawg12]

31. If there's nothing wrong with having a son be a ballet dancer

then, why does the ad refer to it was the worst thing?

I guess you finally saw the pink bow.

Yes, you are correct pink is a feminine association.

All male ballet dancers are not gay, having a son be a ballet dancer is not the worst thing whether the son is gay or straight, but the art work made sure to portray being a male ballet dancer in a pose with a pink ribbon going to his ankle from the pink ribbon off the Nike shoe.

"Why are WE automatically equating dancing males being bad with sexuality..." - Nicholas D Wolfwood

The ad equates having a son in the ballet as even worse than going to the ballet. The thing speaks for itself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. I'm not sure if this is a failure of communication or understanding.

Either way, we are apparently discussing entirely different issues. In the interest of comity, I will cease the discussion.

[Two Americas]

53. you miss the point

Homophobia and bigotry is not about the victims, and is not rational nor connected to reality. It is about the persecutors, not the persecuted, and it can often take seemingly benign forms such as this ad. I say seemingly, because it is pretty blatant, but we are trained to see it as innocent.

This has to do with an exaggerated and rigid code of masculine identity that is closely associated with male domination and privilege. Anything that contradicts that rigid code is feared, so much so that it can lead to violence and even murder, not to mention continual low level prejudice and exclusion of people who in the mind of the hater are a threat to the maintenance of this code, a threat by nothing but their very existence or presence.

These seemingly innocent and benign messages - "I can't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of this and being so sensitive and reading so much into it. I don't see anything negative there" - are perhaps more dangerous than outright overt bigotry, because they serve to make bigotry seem cute and accepted and normal.

You can't see the code for gay because you may be looking in the wrong place.

What could disappointment in your son being a dancer possibly be other than a fear that he is not matching up to a rigid code of masculinity, and how can we separate that from homophobia and bigotry?

[bluedawg12]

56. Well said. There are probably two kinds of responses to that piece

of graphic art.

Either people would give a knowing snicker or be offended.

It's hard to turn that into a a neutral statement, because it is not.

The power of imagery is so potent, that most, if not all, all political movements in the 20th century used them for propaganda.

[Chovexani]

172. You crack me up, dude.

Considering your screen name is one half of arguably one of the most frequently 'shipped couples in yaoi fandom. And I've got a stack of doujinshis to prove it.

Really, I have nothing constructive to add, just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. You are asking the wrong person that question.

Clearly, the author of that ad is equating male dancers with "gay".......and "worst"

[bluedawg12]

58. Exactly. He/she did it with the imagery that went with the text.

It was a "shame" theme, a father making a joke of how he would be ashamed if his son were a skilled professional...in the ballet. Verdict is in!

[FLAprogressive]

7. I'd say it's more gender stereotyping than homophobia.....

although it has elements of both.....and is a bad ad.

[bluedawg12]

18. Heteronormative humor about masculinity is usually about gays.

This doesn't really target the ballet, it goes beyond the ballet, or why would the punchline be: watching your son up there behaving in that way?

[FLAprogressive]

37. very true

like I said it has elements of both.

[zipplewrath]

27. Agreed

It's a horrible ad, and it is hard to separate the implied homophobia from the more generic gender stereotyping. None the less it is fairly obvious that someone with enough ignorance could in essence only "see" the gender stereotyping (as if somehow that wasn't bad enough to get this thing killed) and miss that ultimately the "problem" with the son being there is the implied homosexual nature. The joke is based upon a relatively strange premise to begin with. It is aimed at men, because of course the presumption is that only women like the ballet. Furthermore, only the men would be "bothered" by seeing their son there. Such a joke would not assume that a mother would object. In that sense it is predominately a gender based joke. The homophobia enters because it is difficult to "convert" it to any other punch line. Think of other gender biased job images so to speak, such as nurse and it is hard to see how the joke even works. I mean, "you broke your leg and the only thing worse is you son is the nurse"? So, yes it is a gender based joke, but as much about who the "you" is than anything else. The foil (the son effectively) has to be not only in a gender based job, but potentially an "effeminant" one as well.

[Two Americas]

54. same thing

I think bigotry and homophobia are an inevitable outcome of this gender stereotyping. "Gender stereotyping" makes it sound so benign and passive. Behind that imaginary "concerned" Dad - ha ha, so funny - is a lot of anger, fear, and deadly force. Count on that.

There is a national news story today about a high school football coach who drive the boys, telling them he was going to keep pushing them "until they dropped." One boy did drop - dead.

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I played high school football, I was an adolescent boy. I heard the coach's angry snarling voice, saw the red and contorted face as he mocked and ridiculed us and drove us. Why? So we didn't turn out to be "girly men" or "pussies" or whatever that failure as a man, not masculine shit is all about. We all knew the vague fear that was instilled in all of us persistently - fear of being "light in the loafers" or a "pantywaist."

This is about an exaggerated and rigid masculine code that is aggressively enforced. It is deadly. It is not benign or passive.

[insleeforprez]

10. It's anti-ballet, certainly

and pro-athletic. If I were a ballet fan, I'd be offended, but as it is, I'm an athletic gay man, so I don't have a (personal) problem with it.

[Ian David]

12. Becoming a male ballet dancer is a great way to meet chicks.

Personally, I'd prefer a job at Lane Bryant.

[Two Americas]

55. no it isn't

It is anti-real men being dancers, and by extension anti-any who are not "real men."

It is not in the slightest "anti-ballet."

This is also not about anyone being "offended."

Saddened, disturbed, outraged - maybe - but not "offended." This is not as though someone farted or told an off color joke at an elegant soiree and upset proper decorum.

It is offensive, among other things.

[Ian David]

11. Yeah, that's pretty homophobic.

How about, "The only thing worse than going to The Baseball Hall of Fame, is going to The Baseball Hall of Fame to see the asterisk put next to your son's name,"


The “advertisement” is actually the work of an art design student.

Oooh... I sense some self-loathing.

[bluedawg12]

16. I agree or it could be a straight art student

making a little commentary on heternormative beliefs.

Funny stuff about the hall of fame.

[bluedawg12]

13. Pretty offensive, pink bow and all.

[earthside]

15. So 'ballet' is the same thing as gay?

Who is playing into a stereo-type here?

Democrats, progressives and liberals better chill and adopt a bit of a sense of amusement or there will be a backlash.

Every mildly offensive thing some art student does cannot be turned into a big deal or we will all run out of energy ... and lose the bigger, more important battles for equality, harmony, peace.

Mostly, the ad is condescending towards ballet ... but one doesn't need to look to be offended everywhere, all the time.

[bluedawg12]

17. Come on, the art work is the key. They picked effeminate ballet poses

and a pink bow with the Nike. It's not like they put the male ballet star in a sterotypically masculine pose.

[Two Americas]

57. no, of course not

Bigotry is not logical or rational.

Trivializing this by saying that those who object to it are merely "offended" and then lecturing people about what they should or should not be talking about and how they should be talking about things, for the sake of some imaginary greater cause, and then blaming them and their reactions to the provocation rather than the provocation itself, is a way to avoid the subject of bigotry and it legitimatizes bigotry.

No one who grew up male in this society could possibly be oblivious to the pressure to conform to a very rigid masculine stereotype. I can't believe that anyone could see that ad and not know exactly what that is all about. We are all victims of it, one way or another, and we are all intimately familiar with it.

[mitchtv]

112. It say "oh tha shame of it all"

You chose to not see it but I find it extremely anti Gay male. Nothing ambiguous about it. It wasn't funny

[bluedawg12]

19. Had they used different art work it would not have worked

to convey the "I am ashamed of my son," message.


For example, this pciture of Nureyev below is also of a male ballet dancer and would have been just fine, but then, where's the shame? A handsome, muscular man in a butch stance?

[Zuiderelle]

20. That's anti-gay, anti-ballet, anti-female, and anti-male if you ask me.

But mainly homophobic.

[bluedawg12]

25. Exactly!

It would not have worked, had the text said: watching my daughter perform the ballet.

There's no shame in that. It's a "shame" the gays ad too. Right out of the cultural wars playbook.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Nike will be made to make up for this

By forking over money to support dance programs for boys. First, I have a list of short tempered heterosexual ballet dancers who would like to pay a visit to the 'artist' who hates the arts.
The anti-intellectual and anti-cultural aspects are as disturbing as the sexism and homophobia. Those who would be upset to see their son at ABT most likely would also think of other arts as 'unmanly', so this brat with a set of full color pens and pencils on his desk, drawing male bodies for money might not pass that particualar brown paper bag test, you know?
Ultimate traitor arts wise, that is my first and foremost reaction. He's in the arts and he puts down the arts using atavistic sterotypes. May he rot without funding.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Excellent point re: his own choice of professions.

[bluedawg12]

28. This ad was not commissioned by Nike. Here's more info.

http://glaadblog.org/tag/nike/

As I mentioned yesterday, I spoke with CMYK Magazine’s publisher, Curtis Clarkson, after finding out that an anti-gay ad for Nike shoes was not commissioned by Nike. Rather it was the design of an art student.

Clarkson has issued an apology to GLAAD’s constituents and the LGBT community as a whole. Below is the text of his letter unedited.

We will continue to work with CMYK Magazine and others to ensure there are fair, accurate and inclusive images of LGBT people.

1/13/09
It has been brought to my attention through a couple of blogs and organizations that a fictitious print advertisement for Nike, Inc., published on page 10 of the most recent issue of CMYK Magazine, has offended some people - namely in the gay and lesbian communities. Please know that this ad created by an art student is in no way affiliated with Nike, nor does it express the views and opinions of Nike, Inc.

To offer some background, CMYK Magazine publishes juried work from art students studying advertising (copywriting and art direction), design, illustration and photography. The work published in CMYK Magazine is chosen from thousands of submissions and final selections are determined by notable art-design professionals.

The class assignment in question reads as follows: “The Only Thing Worse Than Going to the Ballet Is Going to the Ballet to Watch Your Son.” The tagline reads: “Raise a Champion.”

The context in which I, personally, read the ad was as a rather risqué parody on the old-fashioned notion that macho guys don’t wants their sons to join the ballet in favor of playing linebacker for the local high school football team.

As with all “art,” there are multiple interpretations. What determines a piece of art’s meaning hinges on the context in which each individual brings to the piece.

While I cannot speak for the student who created the ad, or the judge who selected it, I would like to sincerely apologize to anyone — and every organization as a whole - who takes personal offense by the publishing of this class assignment.

I assure you it was not my intent - or the intent of anyone affiliated with CMYK Magazine - to defame or cause harm to any person or social organization as a result of publishing this piece. Please know that your feedback and commentary to this ad has been heard loud and clear, and I welcome more of your opinions.

I hope you accept my apology and, most importantly, thank you for your time and consideration.
Very Sincerely,
Curtis Clarkson
President
CMYK Magazine, Inc.
[e-mail]

[Sub Atomic]

34. Commissioned by Nike or not, it is an advertisement for their products

and they implicitly stand behind the statement made in the ad.

Do you think that Nike allows random magazines to put up ads that promote their products without Nike being involved?

[bluedawg12]

51. It was a class assignment.

"The class assignment in question reads as follows..."

I agree that the article is confusing as to whether it was a class assignment published in a magazine, or an ad run by Nike, in which case--they knew.

Either way, I find it offensive. We sure agree on that.

[racaulk]

32. That's very disturbing and offensive.

:puke:

[Libertyfirst]

35. This is not a real Nike ad, but a project submitted in a student competition.

This appeared weeks ago on DU and was throughly discussed and the truth came out at that time. Someone is resurrecting old shit just to stir up another firestorm.

[Zuiderelle]

38. I hadn't seen it before. And it's clear in the OP Itself that it was from a student and not Nike.

Whether it was Nike or an art student, it merits discussion about why it was published anywhere for any reason, unless it was an anthropological experiment on how homophobic ads are received.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. It's apparently not clear that it was in the OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=117027&mesg_id=117091

Either that or people don't read.

[Zuiderelle]

45. It was quite clear in the OP. But it is true that some people don't bother reading anything

below the subject line.

[SacredCow]

47. Have to agree....

the OP was crystal clear that Nike was not responsible for the ad. And, this is the first I've seen of it.

I can't call it out and out, in your face homophobic, but it probably does lead the intended audience in that direction pretty effectively. Not to mention that it's a slap to male ballet dancers (regardless of their sexual orientation) who are probably every bit as fit and athletic as your average "champion."

On Edit: Just a ridiculous ad- Even for a student. That's "F" work, for certain.

[donco6]

36. "Be a Fluffy Queer! Or Wear Nikes and be a 'Champion' Instead!"

That's what it says to me.

I mean, who wants their son to be fruity? :sarcasm:

I hope this art design student gets a good spanking.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. its sexist and homophobic. more sexist. like an effiminate man is the worst thing in the universe

danceurs are so gorgeous

[Lilith Velkor]

174. Exac-alack-ly.

[SacredCow]

40. Exceedingly narrow-minded and crass.....

and only a blithering idiot would publish it. But homophobic? Only if all male ballet dancers are homosexuals, which isn't the case that I'm aware of.

That said, it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if the student who designed it was, in fact, homophobic.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

41. nike could have been more thoughtful

I don't think people realize when something might be considered offensive to the LGBT community. I do think that most fathers, if they had their druthers, would prefer their sons join a sport rather than the ballet. That's probably reality, but to put that reality into an ad a "fact" does seem to be a slap in the face to male ballet dancers gay or straight because it feeds into a stereotype.

[closeupready]

46. Very stupid ad. VERY.

n/t

[Yes We Did]

48. I have to disagree.

I think they are really equating dancing to "sissy"; not dancing to "gay". I really don't personally believe in the sissy = gay mantra. Yes, some gay men are flamboyant, so are some straight men. Some gay men are sports nuts, so are some straight men. People are people, and that's how I see it... so no, I am not offended by the ad.

However, I do see how it can be taken that way though, and how it is possible to be offeneded by it. I just look at it different, and based on past actions, choose to give them the benefit of doubt.

I don't recall ever seeing any anti-gay advertisement from Nike before, and since they were the Global Sponsor for Gay Games Chicago in 2006, I would tend to think their intent was not to offend the GLBT community; sissies however, well... that's a different thing. And based on your pic in La Lioness Priyanka's pic thread, cboy4, I can tell you are no sissy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

50. The “advertisement” is actually the work of an art design student. Nike had no part in the creation

[Yes We Did]

64. So it's not an ad at all.

And people are really just arguing for the sake of arguing. Perhaps I should put my glasses back on. :think:

[Two Americas]

69. doesn't matter

What difference does it make whether it is an actual ad or not?

[Yes We Did]

73. It doesn't.

At least not to me; since I am not offended by it.

[Two Americas]

75. questions

What difference does it make whether or not you are personally offended? What difference do your feelings about it make at all?

Why do you insist on making this be about people being offended?

Who is offended? What does that even mean?

Why would it being an ad or not make a difference for someone who was offended? Do you think it would be OK if it were a homophobic message, so long as it was not an ad?

Is bigotry only a matter of personal opinion or personal feelings? Is there no objective reality involved?

I can't see how your feeling that it is not homophobic is a valid argument at all. No one is nor would they argue with you about the way you feel. No one is defending the way that they feel, nor claiming that the way they feel is objective reality.

..

[Yes We Did]

77. Stop reaching for something that isn't there. Read #76 n/t

[Yes We Did]

79. On second thought, I'll answer you again.

Q. What difference does it make whether or not you are personally offended? What difference do your feelings about it make at all?

A. It doesn't. They don't. As I said, just because I don't see it that doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with me.



Q. Why do you insist on making this be about people being offended? Who is offended? What does that even mean?

A. I believe that was the point of the OP. I don't know specifically who is offended, but since we are in the GLBT forum, my guess would be anyone who thinks it a homophobic ad/art.


Q. Why would it being an ad or not make a difference for someone who was offended? Do you think it would be OK if it were a homophobic message, so long as it was not an ad?

A. If it's an ad, more people are going to see it. This was not an ad, it was an art project that got a single submission into one magazine. And no, if it was homophobic, it would not be okay regardless. Please do not make false assumptions about my character like that.


Q. Is bigotry only a matter of personal opinion or personal feelings? Is there no objective reality involved?

A. Everything is objective, and subjective to the individual(s) involved.


I hope that answers your questions.

[Two Americas]

81. thanks

The OP doesn't say anything about "offended," by the way.

I didn't intend to "make false assumptions about your character."

[Yes We Did]

83. Oh I know...

That part was directed at some of the responses more than the OP itself. Perhaps I should have made that clear.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

87. But it was printed by the magazine. THAT'S the issue.

[Yes We Did]

100. I would suggest you and bluedawg12 read #76

[bluedawg12]

89. That piece of art, from a student,was real and published in a magazine

the magazine highlights the art work of students and apparently it was an art assignment.

It does matter. It was published and GLAAD responded to the magazine about it. In response, the magazine appears to have their consciousness raised. That's worth while.

The faux ad was brought to this forum and became a vehicle for good discussion, while people still disagree about it, no one who participated in this thread didn't at least have to think about it.

I don't think it is a waste of time discussing homophobia in a GLBTQ forum.

[Two Americas]

60. same thing

In the minds of the haters - and that is what homophobia is about, not about the targets for the hatred - "sissy" and "gay" are more or less the same thing.

This is not about anyone being merely "offended." That trivializes and dismisses the issue and those who are expressing objections to the art work. It also avoids the subject of homophobia.

[Yes We Did]

63. I just don't see it that way.

Because there a pink ribbon coming from the shoe? There are blue ribbons there too. I just don't see it that way.

Like I said though, I can understand how some do look at it that way. I am just not one of them, and quite frankly I am not trivializing or dismissing anything. I said I could see how some would express objections, I just don't see it the same way.

And, if you look at the history of the company, it also does not reflect a homophobic mentality.



on edit: And I completely disagree about the sissy = gay thing. I don't look at it that way. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that whole bullshit mantra.

A "sissy is a sissy" and "gay is gay"

I do not correlate the two of them; one does not equal the other.

If some choose to think so, then that is their own personal hangup. I prefer not to look at it in those narrow terms.

[Two Americas]

68. I don't know what you mean

Not following you here.

I am not talking about ribbons, not talking about whether or not some company "is" homophobic, I am not arguing about what gays are or are not, not talking about whether or not "gay" and "sissy" are or should be related.

I regret that you are characterizing my remarks as "that whole bullshit mantra" and are dismissing what I said out of hand and giving it no consideration.

[Yes We Did]

70. Well that makes two of us then.

Cuz I don't know how you came away with me avoiding talking about homophobia. I said my statement that I could understand how some could see that ad that way. I just don't look at it that way.

That doesn't mean I am avoiding talking about it. It just means I see it differently, but am still able to see how someone else might have a different opinion.

If I misunderstood what you said, I am sorry, but you definitely got what I said confused.

[Zuiderelle]

92. If you really are gay as you say you are, you would understand the correlation between

calling someone a sissy and inferring that they are gay. How is it that every other gay person here sees that picture as anti-gay and you don't?

Gay people don't CHOOSE to see it as anti-gay when someone insinuates that it's bad to be a sissy ballet dancer if you're a boy. At this point, if you read the entire OP and any responses, you'd know that it is NOT Nike that sponsored the ad. So, why are you giving THEM the benefit of a doubt? Instead it seems you are giving some anonymous art student you don't know the benefit of a doubt. Why would you? You don't know this student's history, as you think you know Nike's. When I don't know the history of someone, I take what is presented to me as it is presented to me.

That "ad" is homophobic and sexist. Period.

[Yes We Did]

98. I would suggest you read over all of my comments.

I have explained every thing you asked here quite clearly.

And please don't pretend to know "how gay I really am"

[Zuiderelle]

101. Ah, there's the demdog78 I remember coming back.

The old "What is there about being gay to be proud about" demdog78. Getting a little hot under the collar? A little defensive? Tsk tsk. You don't get offended by that homophobic ad in the OP so much so that you have to state it here, knowing that most gay people will disagree with you. But then your skin is not tough enough to take a few questions about it?

I do wonder how gay you really are, that you don't recognize the homophobia in that picture.

[Yes We Did]

104. I have taken PLENTY of questions aleady.

Which is why I asked you to read over the whole conversation. As I stated MANY times, just because I did not see the ad as homophobic does not mean that others do not or can not. Maybe you missed all of those.

[Yes We Did]

125. You don't know the artists history either though.

That is the difference. I try to assume the best, and you assume the worst.

I am sorry if your past experiences have influenced you that way. Mine simply have not. I would hate to go around with that on my shoulders; assuming the worst in people.

I simply prefer to live differently and to try to look at things from a more positive perspective.

[Zuiderelle]

139. I'm not assuming the worst, I'm taking it at face value. That ad is clearly homophobic.

Try not to personalize this as an attack on me with your condescension. It's laughable and weak.

[Yes We Did]

144. I am only going by what you wrote.

According to what you wrote, you automatically look at it negatively, but think you are being open minded. I prefer to actually be open minded.

[Zuiderelle]

148. You nailed it there bucko. I am definitely not open-minded to homophobia.

Not one bit. I see something homophobic and it's completely unacceptable to me. I'm unwilling to compromise. I'm steadfast and resolute in my anti-homophobia stance.

[Yes We Did]

153. Neither am I.

I am just more careful about what I label as homophobic. But of course, you knew I wasn't saying you should be open to homophobia. That was just another one of your mis-characterizations.

I think you might be right though. We wouldn't get along. I prefer to be around more open minded people who don't twist other people's words; as you just did with mine... again.

[Zuiderelle]

157. I prefer to be around people who would see the ad in the OP for what it is.

HOMOPHOBIC.

[Yes We Did]

160. And I prefer to be around someone who realizes there is a possibility

that the aren't always right.

[davidinalameda]

49. for pity's sake

it's homophobic as fuck

get a clue

it's amazing at the level of stupidity on this site sometimes

[bluedawg12]

52. That's the problem, there is empathy lacking in some. I pity them.

It's bad enough some defend this crap, but far worst, are those who try to turn it on gays and say we are biased for calling it what it is. :grr:

[Two Americas]

61. what I think is happening

It is surprising to me that any males in this society would deny the pressure applied on all of us from the time we are very young to conform to a certain masculine stereotype. That is where homophobia comes from. But I think many are uncomfortable looking into themselves, looking at their own experiences with this, so they distance themselves from it and either talk in some disconnected bland way about the object in question - "gee I don't see anything offensive there, I don't feel anything at all. I can't imagine why anyone would read anything into it or be offended" - or criticize, attack and find fault with the rest of us.

That is the fear that we all live under - the fear to open up that can of worms and look at ourselves. It is drilled into us to not become or be "gay" or "sissy" or "pussy" - not masculine in a certain narrow way. People do not want to look at this for fear of what that might lead to - they might discover that they are - gasp - "gay." The fear runs deep.

It could be very powerful for hetero men to look at this, and break the spell that the fear has over them. Homophobia does not so much mean fear of gays, as it does mean fear of being, or becoming gay - of being or becoming soft, weak, a sissy, a failure, a victim, a loser. The football coach says "run that extra mile, growl and scream, bash the shit out of the other guy, or else..." or else what? Or else you might become a "pussy." You might turn out wrong, you might not be a real man.

From that, young men grow up thinking that "gay" is something you have to guard against, something that you could turn into if you let your guard down. That is why the religious right has to see it as a choice, because their goal is to enforce a stereotypical male role model.

Hetero men are not going to turn gay if they examine and question the ways that a rigid and stereotypical male role model has been forced on them. But that is the fear.

[bluedawg12]

62. You knocked that one out of the park, 2-A's! Outstanding!!

Yeah, I see it now as fear of being weak, losing control in the pecking order and being a loser in competition and life.

It works on some gay women too. The masculine butch roll isn't so much wanting to look like men, as it is to achieve masculine powers.

But it takes introspection to figure out our own respnses and are they a stale rut, or ar we moving on and upward and growing.

Not that there is anything wrong for women being super masculine, it is only a problem if you deny the feminine side that also has a lot to enrich life.

That piece should go to a psyche class, or group therapy, I bet people reveal some deep buried secrets.

[Yes We Did]

65. It appears you are trying to use me as an example.

If so, please do it completely. While I said i am not personally offended, I did say that I could see how some could view the advertisement in that light. So please, if you are going to slam me on one side, make sure to give me credit where credit is due.

Second, I feel you are lending credibility to a false dichotomy here. All straight men are not masculine and all gay men ae not feminine, and to break it down to those simple stereotypes does not help anything.

I don't see that advertisement as homophobic because I don't see gay men in that light. Men are not either feminine or masculine. There are many many shades in between, gay or straight, and to break it down like that really over simplifies the matter.

Are you going to tell me that all your straight friends are 100% masculine and all your gay friends are 100% feminine? Of course not. I know I have friends all over the spectrum, and that you can't tell by a person's mannerisms what their sexual orientation is. Only narrow-minded people buy into such limited theories.

Am I saying your OP is 100% false? Of course not. Many people (straight and gay) think the way you described. I am just not one of them.

So, to make myself clear. I "personally" did not view that advertisement as homophobic, but AS I SAID BEFORE, that doesn't mean other people don't, and there is nothing wrong with that. But based on my own personal views, and the Nike's history, I have a difficult time believing that is where they were going with it. I believe they think dancing is sissies, and that is where they were headed with it. Which is really funny, because boxers take ballet classes, and they don't call them sissies for it.

Hypocritical, yes. Homophobic, I don't believe so.

[Two Americas]

71. not at all

I wasn't thinking about you at all, but remembering back to my own adolescence and the pressure we were all under to conform to masculine gender stereotypes.

As I said, this is not about people being offended, and certainly not about whether or not you are.

I did not say, and certainly would not say that "all straight men are masculine and all gay men are feminine." Quite to the contrary.

Whether or not the message in the ad is homophobic has absolutely nothing to do with what light you see gay men in.

I did not say, and would not say that you can "tell by a person's mannerisms what their sexual orientation is."

The OP is not mine, by the way.

Again, I didn't say anything about Nike, or what they might be or not be or might or might not be doing. I am talking about the message in the add.

So I am still not following you and I don't understand what you are objecting to or arguing about. You keep refuting things that no one said.

[Yes We Did]

72. You used some of the stuff I said...

maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at, or I'm reading someone else thinking it's you. It's late here; I'm tired. :boring: Sorry about the confusion.

We apparently grew up a bit differently though. While my father was/is a very masculine man, I never felt those pressures growing up. Maybe that's why I see it differently.

[Two Americas]

74. ah, Yes We Did

I think I just understood what you are saying here.

You are saying that a homophobic message in that poster could only be in the mind of the beholder - that bigotry exists because people see things that are not true, that are not "really" there. You are then saying that these things should not be in a person's mind, unless they are a bigot.

Since you are not a bigot, and do not want to be one, therefore you refuse to "receive" - to "see" - any such homophobic message in the image, as part of your personal commitment to not being bigoted.

[Yes We Did]

76. Um... No.

I'm saying as a relatively masculine gay man, with a very masculine partner, I do not personally see that "ad" as an attack on gay men. I see it as a crude attack on sissies.

And I am saying that while I personally do not see it as a homophobic ad, that does not mean others cannot.

That is what I am saying.

edit: However, what you just said... I am sure that it does apply to some straight men who are confident and comfortable in who they are.

[Two Americas]

78. you sound just like demdog78

Just kidding...

OK. You do not personally see that "ad" as an attack on gay men. I wouldn't argue with you about that.

Again, I don't think this is about who does and who does not feel this way or the other about it.

Are you really saying that you can see no connection between don't be a sissy and don't be gay? I am absolutely certain that the other 100 adolescent guys on my high school football team most definitely saw the connection and got that message loud and clear.

Also - of course a super macho person can be gay, and of course they might be less likely to feel personally threatened by "sissy" and "gay" being associated with one another, and of course the stereotypes are bullshit.

[Yes We Did]

80. I saying that "I" don't see it that way.

I'm not saying that other see it the same way as me. I'm just saying how I feel about it. I cannot and will not pretend to speak for others.

I have many straight friends I would call sissies. I know many gay men who are very masculine. I learned along time ago to stop believing in labels.

I really try to live by a "people are just people" code. I've been surprised too many times to think for one minute you can judge a book by the cover. (Not that you are doing that)

I'm not a "gay man" I'm just a man. My dad isn't a "straight man" He's just a man too. Too often society tries to label people based on how they live their lives. I simply prefer to keep it simple I guess. I don't need the labels.

[Two Americas]

82. I see

I see your point and agree with you. Thanks for explaining it.

[Yes We Did]

84. I guess you could say....

My partner has been a very positive influence on me. He's the type of person who will as a Polish person not to tell a "polock" joke, or ask an African American not to drop an N-bomb.

There have been too many people discriminated against in this country for things they have no control over. And I have to believe, based on my experiences thus far, that it really only takes one person to start a movement.

[bluedawg12]

88. I see too. Yet, this is a political movement for equal rights.

I would prefer that no man ever be called the "f" word.

I would prefer that no woman be called the "d" word.

I would prefer that people stop thinking in terms of our gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation as an adjective to describe who we are as people.

That would be nice.

But, we are far from that goal and denial of the fact that people do think this way, as the world is far, far from perfect, it is important to pay attention to those social clues that re-enforce labels, stereotypes and often derogatory messages.

By objecting to this ad people are not reinforcing labels, they are objecting to labels, stereotypes and sly anti-gay innuendo and humor.

On one hand you some anonymous art student making this faux ad, which is offensive to many, on the other extreme you have Fred Ph*lps and his: "God hates f*gs" umm...signage. It's all on the same continuum and a slippery slope.

Thanks for bringing this into a good discussion 2 A's, it shows how far we have yet to go. One does not have to be part of a discriminated against group in order to know what's right and to speak up for what is right.
In fact, I hope that's how it is, that fair people and good people will speak out against bullies, even if they have no dog in the fight.

[Zuiderelle]

93. Thanks for saying what I would have said.

Glad I read your response before responding.

:thumbsup:

[Yes We Did]

94. I was wondering where you were.

Haven't seen you in a while. Hope everything's going well.

[Zuiderelle]

95. Judging by your responses in this thread, I take it you are out of the closet now?

[Yes We Did]

96. Yup!

:hi:

[Zuiderelle]

97. Good for you.

Now that I have your attention, can you respond to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=117027&mesg_id=117264

[Yes We Did]

99. I would suggest you read all of my responses in this thread.

And spend less time questioning how "gay I am" or If I'm gay at all.

[Zuiderelle]

103. Take a break. Sounds like you're getting uptight.

[Yes We Did]

106. You're just trying to push my buttons.

And damn it... I'm sick of letting you. I just don't understand why you have to be that way.

[Zuiderelle]

109. Because I'm just a big ole meanie I guess.

:eyes:

[Yes We Did]

118. You said it... not me.

It's okay. It's nice to know that me mere existence and views (even when I openly concede they may be wrong) can get someone's blood boiling. It's flattering. Although, I believe that if we were actually speaking instead of typing that we might agree a lot more than we do on here.

[Zuiderelle]

124. My blood's not boiling. Must be your own.

I don't really think we would agree, based on what I've read.

[Yes We Did]

126. And that would be why...

"Based on what you read"; not based on what was actually written.

[Zuiderelle]

131. I read what was written. You posted an entire other thread to imply that THIS ad is not bigoted.

How else could you possibly have meant this to be: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x117166">THIS is bigoted advertising.

[Yes We Did]

132. I meant "THIS is bigoted advertising"

And since the "ad" in here wasn't actually a ad... I stand by what I posted. Not everything is a code for something else. Some of us just say what we are thinking.

[Zuiderelle]

137. By making the "THIS" uppercase it's clear that you were emphasizing that THAT was bigoted...

and based on that combined with your responses here about how you do not equate sissy with gay and that you do not find the ad in the OP offensive, it would take a complete idiot not to understand what you meant.

You can't just pretend you didn't mean something that was that obvious.

You've done this before, it's a very tired game.

[Yes We Did]

143. .

:hurts:, don't it? Being that cynicial... must really :hurts:

[Two Americas]

107. good post

I didn't want to keep haggling with the other poster. In the limited way he is looking at the subject, he is right, and we can build understanding by acknowledging where we agree as a starting point.

I am thinking about my late grandmother on the subject of race. She would say "I just don't see color. The color of a person's skin tells you nothing about their character." That led her to be somewhat blind to racism, as well. "If people didn't look at the color of another person's skin, it would be a better world." That was a pretty enlightened view for a farm girl in the 30's, driven by poverty to Detroit as a teenager and working for one of the auto companies.

Her "see no evil" approach didn't preclude her excusing racism in others, including my grandfather. I would ask her, how come he doesn't call on that customer Nathan on 12th Street anymore? She would say "oh, he isn't prejudiced against colored people. He just knows that colored people don't (drive as well and he doesn't want to have an accident, don't pay their bills as fast, prefer to buy from their own kind, etc.)" Of course I had been at those meetings where my grandfather and the other owners of small auto supply companies smoked their cigars and drank Altes beer and talked about "the colored" in the most racist terms, and I knew that Black business owners were being systematically excluded from the delivery routes and the good connections and were struggling.

This "not going into the colored neighborhoods" idea seemed absurd to me as a young man, because as nearly as I could see we were in a "colored neighborhood." When I confronted my grandfather about that, he would expound on his good colored-bad colored theory. Good colored were his neighbors and friends, bad colored were some vaguely defined and dangerous others somewhere.

On the other hand, once my grandfather passed away and my grandmother took over running the business, she truly did not "see color" and extended credit and service and terms to everyone without prejudice or discrimination.

[Yes We Did]

110. Is that what we were doing? "Haggling"

I don't know about you, but just thought we were having an open dialect; one that I thought was quite positive.

I didn't think we were arguing; at least not after we figured out what each was really trying to say. Was I mistaken?

[Two Americas]

114. I don't know

You are the one objecting. I am fine with the discussion. If you do not feel pestered, that is fine. I was trying to be courteous and considerate.

[Yes We Did]

116. I thought I was doing the same.

I didn't know we are arguing. I thought we were just talking.

[Two Americas]

164. ok

Then why did you object to what I said and accuse me of "just being argumentative?"

Let's keep talking.

Is it "talking" when it goes your way and "arguing" when it does not?



..

[Zuiderelle]

102. Oh now wait... because you're masculine you don't understand how sissy has been used to imply gay?

I don't believe you.

[Yes We Did]

105. And there is the PelosiFan I remember.

Misquoting and purposefully mis-characterizing what I write. I think you just like to piss people off. I think you just like to attack people and see what you want to see; regardless of what is actually there.

Not all gay people have to see everything exactly the same. Not all gay people have to be offended by the same things.

That doesn't make one person "less gay" than another. I don't understand why that is so hard for you to see.

[Zuiderelle]

108. You wrote a whole other thread about what is "really" offensive to imply that this ad is not.

You saying you understand other people being offended by this doesn't change the way you are pushing back that it is not offensive.

I truly have never met a gay person in my life who doesn't understand the implied homophobia in calling someone a sissy.

[Yes We Did]

111. Again, not all people see things the same way.

And while I do not PERSONALLY view this ad as homophobic, I DO recognize that others can and do.

That is not pushing back. That is accepting the possibility that I might be wrong.

And I NEVER said I don't understand the implied homophobia in calling someone a sissy; I am just saying it is NOT exclusive to the GLBT community.

You are NOT reading what I am typing. You are reading snips and drawing false conclusions.

[Two Americas]

117. so what?

Of course "not all people see things the same way." So what? That does not make all views equally valid.

Of course people who are not gay are called sissies. Again, so what? There have been people abused and even murdered because someone thought they were gay. The fact that they were not gay does not mean that the abuse or murder was not motivated by homophobia and bigotry.

[Yes We Did]

119. Why are you taking it there?

Alright. I'm not about to try to tackle that one. We were talking about an art project, and now it's murder. I really have no interest in going there with you today.

I will say what I have been saying this whole time.

I do not personally see that "ad" as homophobic. I do however see how others can and do.

As to any other issues you want to bring up... those are separate and deserve to be discussed individually; and not just part of this discussion.

[Two Americas]

128. I am not taking it there

It IS there.

People do suffer abuse and persecution, to the point of being murdered. Were gay people not at risk, not suffering real consequences, objectively in the real world, we would not even be discussing this at all.

Who cares what a person likes or dislikes, who cares what you are or are not offended by? We may as well argue about our favorite green vegetable if we are going to reduce the discussion to being a matter of people's personal feelings and preferences.

Paraphrasing Dr. King -

I don't care whether or not a person likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me.

[Yes We Did]

130. I'm not having that discussion with you.

Not in this thread. If you want to start one for that (because it deserves it's own thread) fine. But that is not what this thread was about.

[Two Americas]

133. why is that?

You claim that you are not trying to invalidate or diminish the opinions of others, yet you want to dictate to the rest of us what this thread is and is not about.

You do know, do you not, that people wishing to promote bigotry will use you, will hold you up and say "see? Not all gay people agree" and present that as a counter-argument to any and all arguments by people trying to point out bigotry anywhere and everywhere?

[Yes We Did]

135. Because that is not what this thread was about.

If you want to talk to someone else about it here, fine. Who is stopping you? I am not invalidating or diminishing anything.

I would rather discuss something like that in it's own thread, so it's not hidden away somewhere else.

As far as your other comment; that's a strawman, and lends to the "If your REALLY gay you must agree" bullshit that PelosiFan was spouting.

[Two Americas]

138. not about bigotry?

Everyone else thinks the thread is about bigotry. You are the only one who thinks it should be about what each of us may or may not personally be offended by, and you are the one who is telling us that it matters that as a gay person you are not offended, and that we should see it as more significant that you are not offended then we would see it if a hetero person was not offended by it.

[Yes We Did]

140. I didn't say anything of the sort.

I was referring to murder, as you brought up. Are you just trying to be argumentative?

And as far as the rest of it... What a crock of shit. I never said any of that. YOU keep saying I said it.

[Two Americas]

145. that makes no sense

How can we talk about bigotry and not talk about how that can result in people being murdered?

I thought you were OK with the discussion and did not feel pestered, and could not understand why I would ease up on you. Now you complain that I am "just trying to be argumentative."

[Yes We Did]

149. I am suggesting that the murder of GLBT members because they are GLBT Members

Deserves it's own thread. What about that is difficult to understand?

[Two Americas]

155. of course

There are many such threads. There could and should perhaps be more, no?

Do you think that there is too much awareness of the issue, and that we should not remind ourselves and each other of the danger?

[Two Americas]

120. that is not what is at issue here

No one is saying that "all gay people have to see everything exactly the same." No one is saying that "all gay people have to be offended by the same things." No one is saying that "one person is less gay than another."

I do not agree that because you are gay, that therefore not all gays agree about this, so therefore your view is equally valid to anyone else's point of view and must stand unchallenged.

Why can you make assertions and demand that they be seen as legitimate, because you are gay, when a hetero person could not make those same assertions without being called on them and asked to support and defend them?

If you can say "I am gay and I don't see it that way, therefore the way that other gays see it is not the way it is" how come I can say "I am hetero and I see this as bigoted, therefore not all heteros see this the same way, therefore heteros who see this as not bigoted are wrong?"

Why does the opinion of one gay person invalidate the view of every other gay person, but the opinion of one hetero speaking out against bigotry does not carry the same weight?

I will tell you why - because there is a double standard, and you are promoting that double standard.

[Yes We Did]

122. Maybe you missed it.

but YES that is EXACTLY what she said to me. That I must not really be gay because I do not see this as all the other gay people in here do.

THAT IS WHAT SHE SAID.

I asked for clarification, and that is the response I got.

Fuck This Shit.

I NEVER put my views above anyone else's in this thread. NOT ONCE.

Contrary, I have said REPEATEDLY that they are NOT above anyone else, that I don't feel anyone has to agree with me, that they are MY VIEWS ALONE.

I *PERSONALLY* do not find the ad homophobic. That does NOT mean that OTHERS will not see it differently.

What more do you want?

[Two Americas]

127. not true

If a person claimed to be Black here, and then went on and on about how they did not find "Sambo" and "uppity" offensive and had never considered the issue and didn't see it, and said that therefore perhaps those terms were not racist, of course people might suspect that the person was not in fact Black, would they not? Denial of the racism implicit in those terms is much more common among whites than among people of color.

Also, we have a long history of this trick being used to promote racism - "here is one person of color who does not think there is any problem with racism, so therefore 'they' do not all agree, so therefore those talking about racism are wrong since not all people of color agree with them."

You are the one claiming to be gay and insisting that this fact be used to give your views more credibility.

No one asked you if you personally find the ad homophobic, no one thinks that has anything to do with whether or not the ad is bigoted, and whether or not you are gay does not make your argument any more or less valid. You are the one insisting on those terms for the discussion. That IS asking us to give your views more weight than others, and that IS an attempt at weakening and invalidating the views of others.

[Yes We Did]

129. I would suggest you read #92.

Tell me she isn't saying that I am not gay because I do not agree with the majority of people here.Read that thread, and when I ask for clarification; her response, and tell me that is not what she is implying.

And before you respond with a "I cannot tell what is in her head" type of response, apply it to our conversation.

And let me clear this up. Me being gay... I'm not "using it to give my views credibility"

I don't need it to do that. My views are credible because they are my views; just as yours are credible because they are your views.

This is a discussion forum. I came in, gave my opinion and contributed to the discussion. I thought that is what we are supposed to do.

Based on you argument, I could turn around and say the same stuff about you. But i don't. Know why? I respect your right to see things how you see them; as long as you do not set out to hurt anyone.

[Two Americas]

141. I did read it

I agree with it.

I too question how anyone can fail to see this.

You say - "My views are credible because they are my views; just as yours are credible because they are your views."

I do not agree that someone's views are to be presumed valid merely because they are their views.

[Yes We Did]

146. Then you don't even believe what you write yourself.

"No one is saying that "all gay people have to see everything exactly the same." No one is saying that "all gay people have to be offended by the same things." No one is saying that "one person is less gay than another.""

That, or you are just a liar. Either way... I'm done. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

You address only what you want to address, and whine when i answer all your questions. Then you go an misrepresent what I said to try to make your point. I thought you were better than that.

[Zuiderelle]

142. I am indeed saying that I don't believe you're gay if you really don't understand the correlation

between "sissy" and "gay." Or maybe you're just combative. I am really struggling with how you could be gay and never have heard that the term "sissy" is used nearly interchangeably with "faggy" or "light in the loafers" or any other term used to denigrate gay men.

[Yes We Did]

147. I never said that either.

that may be how you chose to interpret it, but that's not what I said.

And if you are going to quote me to try to prove your point, use the entire quote; not just the parts you cherry-pick to try to prove your false argument.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

168. Here:

You see this as homophobic, I see this as... anti-sissy, but not homophobic; but that's just how "I" look at it, or "decipher" it. It doesn't mean I'm right about the artist's intent, it just how my mind processes it base on my own personal experiences.

How can it be "anti-sissy" and not homophobic? Unless you refuse to acknowledge sissy is a derogatory term used for gay men?

[Yes We Did]

169. Yes, It can be.

But that doesn't mean it "always" is. I don't think this is necessarily a example. That is my point.

[Two Americas]

150. of course

Beyond that, a person claiming to never have heard that means nothing - does not mean that it does not exist.

One person says "look at the tree" and another says "I see no tree." That does not mean that "we all have different views, equally valid" and so therefore we cannot say whether or not the tree is there. It is or it isn't there.

Then should a person say "I am a professional in the forestry industry and I see no tree" they are clearly trying to give their view more weight by saying that. "Not all forestry professionals see a tree there, so maybe it is not there. You may have your opinion that trees are there, but it is no more valid than my opinion that they are not there."

[Zuiderelle]

156. Very good analogy.

It's what makes this kind of passive comment in a thread like this so provocative. It's a homophobic ad. The thread isn't asking if it is, it's really not debatable. Like that tree we all see that one person doesn't. But here we have a "debate" anyway.

[Two Americas]

159. oh!

It is PelosiFan.

Hi.

:hug:

This user name change thing had me thinking that we suddenly doubled the number of strong and insightful posters around here lol.

[Zuiderelle]

166. What a nice thing to say.

Especially coming from you. Thanks! :hug:

[Yes We Did]

161. But that's not what I did. Now is it? n/t

[Yes We Did]

151. And as far as being combative...

I am not the one judging people on how they see things... Or saying they aren;t really gay because they don't agree with everyone else.

In fact, the only attacks I have launched have been in RESPONSE to your or AA.

[Zuiderelle]

152. I am not saying you are not gay... I am saying that I do not believe you are.

Who cares? It's my opinion. You don't find the ad offensive, that's your opinion. I don't believe you're gay, that's my opinion.

[Yes We Did]

154. Good thing I don't have to prove it to YOU then, isn't it? n/t

[Two Americas]

158. but...

I thought you said it didn't matter - that your view was credible regardless?

Which is it?

[Yes We Did]

162. As I just said...

It doesn't matter is she thinks I'm gay. She's not the one fucking me, now is she.

And whether I'm gay or not has absolutely no impact on whether my OPINION is valid or not.

Why you want to try to force a link between me is beyond all, but have at it. Guess you are out of ways to try to tell me I have to agree with everyone else or I can't possibly be gay.

What the fuck is this? The Gay Loyalty Oath?

[Two Americas]

163. then why mention it?

Then why say "I am gay and it doesn't offend me?"

[Yes We Did]

165. In case you missed it...

She brought it up. So what... Now I'm wrong for addressing her claims? Give it a rest already. You are just trying to stir shit, and I'm done holding your pot.

[Jamastiene]

66. Yes, I think it is homophobic and misogynist too.

I'd like to see some of the "macho" athletes, who think ballet is wimpy, try to do ballet training for a day. A week would be too much for most of them. Most of them wouldn't make it through the day, much less the week. Ballet training is freaking tough. It requires agility, stamina, and muscle tone that takes some serious out of this world discipline to train.

[Yes We Did]

67. Many of them DO take ballet.

Especially boxers; which why the art student who made this was really stupid. But it's not actually an ad for Nike.

[Jamastiene]

85. Good, Nike knows better then.

Ballet is tough, no doubt about it. I can totally see how it could help boxers. I always wondered where they got their great footwork. Now I know. Thanks.

[bluedawg12]

90. I am glad Nike had no part in this. Still, the art work was provocative

and the student who made it has given us the opportunity to discuss it and to understand more subtle forms of bigotry and propaganda.

I recall a TV show years ago, where the term about some TV show character was used, and he was described as "light in the loafers." You would have to understand bigotry and American vernacular to unravel that slur. For example, someone coming to America and learning the language would wonder why someone was light in the loafers would make any sense. Unless they knew that it was code on code.

Gays have been called "fairies". Well why fairies?

Because fairies are twinkly, effeminate, little creatures. Think tinkerbell.

So, the code was, faerie, coded to mean lighter than air, hence, "light in the loafers."

Note loafers, that too is subtle. Saying "light in the combat boots" or "light in the wingtips" would make no sense.

That art assignment, with the flying ballet dancer tied to pink ribbon, arms outstretched, wrists down was just another semaphore, code, a signal, for gay. There are plenty of photo's of muscular, handsome male ballet performer pics out in the world to select, the art student, being slyly good at making his/her visual message, chose that one.

Imagine gay art students opening that magazine, and like in the old days, before the inter net, before the message is picked up and the word spread fast, imagine that gay (male or female) art student, thinking they were alone and wondering if their straight teachers, fellow students, and potential employers mocked them.

[Yes We Did]

91. Yes, but not everyone knows "the code"

I consider myself to be highly educated and just... "in tune" with our country and it's history, but I learn new vernacular every day that has been around for years.

Example; until Obama ran, I had never heard of "Sambo" or knew that "uppity" was a racially derogatory term. People see things differently, and not everyone has the same intentions.

You mentioned the pink ribbon, and equate that to gay. See, I don't get that same draw. I equate it to ballet because I have always equated it that way due to seeing girls with pink ribbon/lacing up their legs. I also saw blue ribbon/lacing around the men (although yes, the pink was prominent)

You see this as homophobic, I see this as... anti-sissy, but not homophobic; but that's just how "I" look at it, or "decipher" it. It doesn't mean I'm right about the artist's intent, it just how my mind processes it base on my own personal experiences.

If it turns out I'm wrong, and the piece was supposed to be homophobic; it was the creators actual intent, then I'm right there with you. However, at the moment, I don't see it that way.

But like I said, that doesn't stop anyone else from having a different view.

[Two Americas]

113. you keep missing the point on this

Just because *you* are unaware of the racist associations with the words "Sambo" or "uppity" that does not tell us anything at all about the subject. It is not merely a matter of "different views" and a view that the use of the word "Sambo" does not have racist implications cannot be automatically presumed to be equally valid with any other view. All views are not equal.

Also, we are not arguing here about what the artist's intent may or may not have been - as though any of us could prove that one way or another anyway.

Why should how you look at it or decipher it be automatically seen as valid? Why should we think that because you are gay that your view has more validity then it would were you not?

[Yes We Did]

115. I'm not placing any more validity on my views than anyone elses.

Why is that so hard to understand? I have said it over and over. But as American citizens... We all have the right to see things as we see them.

And as long as we know and respect that someone else might see things differently, there is nothing wrong with that.

[Two Americas]

121. yes you are

You are saying "I am gay, and I am not offended, therefore this proves that not all gays see this as bigoted, and if not all gays see it as offensive therefore we can not say that it is in fact bigoted, and all claims that it is are automatically suspect."

This is a false construct. You are asking us to accept that until and unless all gays see this artwork as offensive, it cannot be seen as bigoted.

[Yes We Did]

123. No... I am saying that "I" do not see it that way.

I don't really give a shit if nobody agrees with me. I don't need you or anyone else here to tell me what I should be offended by.

If it bothers you... or anyone else... fine. That's your right.

I am not asking you to accept a damn thing I say, other than that I have the right to feel that way. It's really not that complicated, and why you are so intent on making it so baffles me.

[Two Americas]

134. then you have no argument

If it doesn't matter how you personally see the ad, then your entire argument collapses and is irrelevant to the discussion.

No one ever demanded that you be offended by the ad, nor rested their argument on whether or not you were personally offended. You brought that up. Why?

You must have expected people to see your argument as relevant when you started posting. I think that had you not been challenged, you would not now be backing away from that and claiming innocence.

You most definitely were saying that you are gay, that you are not offended, and so therefore doubt and uncertainty should be cast on the views of those who saw the ad as bigoted.

[Yes We Did]

136. Look at it however you want.

I don't give a shit any more. It was an opinion. It was my opinion. It has not changed. It doesn't need to change.

I do not see it as homophobic. Others may and do disagree. That is fine with me. (if you really care)

That has been my whole statement. I didn't have an argument to make; just a view. YOU made it into an argument, and that is sad.

[LostinVA]

86. That's sickening -- wtf is wrong with them???

They're a Portland-based company, too.

Yet another reason to add to the long list of why I never buy any of their products.

[NYC_SKP]

167. Wrong on many levels more than its the homophobia.

It belittles fathers, sons, and the concept of a person "finding themselves" or "choosing a different path".

If perpetuates the fucked up attitude that if your son is in the ballet, there's something wrong with him.

In fact, it gives permission to that kind of hatred.

It's worse than homophobic, it incites hate.

[Solon]

170. Uhm, what?

I don't get this part:

It's worse than homophobic, it incites hate.

Explain to me how homophobia isn't hate.

[NYC_SKP]

171. Well, I'll try.

First, I would clarify that by saying "it's worse than homophobic", I didn't mean that it wasn't homophobic.

What I meant was that the ad takes homophobia and stereotyping, and turns it into validation for anyone who cares to slap their ballet loving kid around, elevating it to incitement to others to be hateful.

I'd venture to guess that most Americans are misinformed, unenlightened, and afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality. By definition, this makes them homophobic.

Homophobia, like any phobia, is about fear, and usually fear that comes from ignorance. Unless and until it expresses itself in hateful actions, homophobia is fear and ignorance.

This ad clearly was homophobic, but it took that to new dimensions, a corporation perpetuating an ugly sexist homophobic stereotype for profit. That's a whole different league of homophobia in contrast to, say, a kid who just learned hatred from his parents and didn't know any better.

[sui generis]

173. That's okay, NIKE waited until the indictment before they dropped Vick

So they really don't have a problem with dogs mauling each other to death for sport either.

Screw Nike - with a running chainsaw.

[MellowDem]

175. Is it meant to be satire?

It's not homophobic per se, any more than it is sexist and equally offensive to both men and women of all sexualities.