Which is worse? Homophobia or Heterosexism?

[Behind the Aegis]

I have seen a number of posts here, recently, that drip with heterosexism. It got me to thinking; which is really worse? On one hand, homophobia has killed and destroyed a number of lives, but heterosexism ignores the reality of GLB people. I originally thought homophobia is worse, but then I thought how recognized it is. However, heterosexism tends to be more prevalent in society, which, IMHO, feeds homophobia in both direct and indirect ways. So, what do y'all think?


(Edit: I am guessing one can't use "" in the poll question. Oooops!)

Edit to add definitions by request:

Homophobia: fear or intense dislike/hate of people who are homosexual (though I am including hate against those who are also bisexual). Also, this term is used to describe discrimination or bigotry against those who are GLB.

Heterosexism: the presumption that all people are heterosexual or heterosxuality is the "default" in situations. i.e. "Why should prostitution be legalized?" only to be followed by comments about women prostitutes (sex workers) and male clients. Another example is a poster talking about his/her wife/husband and assuming the husband/wife is of the "other" sex.

I hope this helps!

[MADem]

1. OK, call me a dunce. I know what homophobia is. But what in hell is

heterosexism? I really need a precise, concise definition. I imagine it has SOMETHING to do with heterosexuals!

Is it "preferring" the company of them? Giving them more status, as though they're top dogs in any group? Regarding them as the norm, the only, like a fifties sitcom?

I just don't know what the term means...

You learn something new here every day....!

[Behind the Aegis]

8. I edited the OP.

I hope that is a good enough definition. Admittedly, it was off the top of my head. Two of your questions reflect the heart of heterosexism:

• Giving them more status, as though they're top dogs in any group?
  
• Regarding them as the norm, the only, like a fifties sitcom?

:hi: from NOLA!

[Orsino]

47. I'm not sure you've clearly distinguished between the two terms.

I rather suspect that they are the same beast.

[MADem]

76. Thanks BTA!! And now, for the obligatory "OTHER"response

I think where you stand depends on where you sit. I would guess that a person on the receiving end of homophobia, or who had a friend or relative impacted by it, would see that as "worst." It's really no different from any other kind of prejudicial approach--it's ignorant, hurtful and stupid.

As for the heterosexism issue, I suppose how it's taken depends on who the "majority" is--it's really one of those "majority rules" issues in that it can be situational.

For example, in the gay bar or on the Rosie O'Donnell cruise ship, I would imagine that "heterosexism" on the part of some clueless heterosexual wouldn't so much be something to get irritated or angry about, but instead, more like laughed at or pitied.

HOWEVER....if you are a gay person, and a heterosexual (or a group of heterosexuals) is expecting you to "conform" to a heterosexxual stereotype (Example--the family KNOWS you're gay, but they want you attend cousin Louise's wedding with a member of the opposite sex, so as not to "put off" the groom's family) well, that might be "worst" because of the rank hypocrisy and the willingness of friends or family to sacrifice the homosexual family member's feelings in order to please strangers.

In any culture, the majority tends to rule. There are still people who can't wrap their heads around the idea that this country is no longer predominantly Europeans...I suppose it will take awhile yet before some people realize it's not just Barbie and Ken on the American menu.

And while the majority does tend to rule, the majority shifts constantly, depending on what the situation is--is the majority women? men? Is the majority white people? Hispanics? Blacks? Is the majority older people? Younger? Gay? Straight?

There are cultures within our "greater" culture. What the majority is depends on where you are hanging out, what neighborhood you're in.

People are well served when they're a bit sensitive to differences. There's nothing wrong with being a bit clueless, but once one is "educated" it isn't too swift to stay stupid. I guess, like everything, the more education, the better.

[Tunkamerica]

2. I think defining the terms would help

[swimmernsecretsea]

3. Shouldn't there also be a "T" as in GLBT?

Didn't see that, and this discussion forum has talked at length about transphobia here.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. No. I left the "T" out on purpose.

I was more interested in responses based on one's sexual orientation, not gender identity; though that would be interesting, too. "Transgendered" is not a sexual orientation. Transphobia is also very real, but the hate is based on something other than sexual orientation, usually.

[hamnose]

4. Hey, you left out homosexism

Do you just make this stuff up?
You know I'm really happy for your sexuality. Maybe you could be happy for mine. It just makes everything so neat.
Or how 'bout I accept that I'm a heterosexist when you accept that you are a homosexist and we both work on that.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. The only one 'making stuff up' is you.

There is nothing known as "homosexism." I doubt that most people you come across, you think they are gay first, before considering they are heterosexual. Recognizing bigotry doesn't mean that one isn't "happy" for the 'other.' I can recognize heterosexist behavior, but I do not begrudge heterosexuals of their happiness or privilege.

[hamnose]

84. Its just so nitpickin

Can you honestly say that homosexuals do not have preferences or prejudices as do heterosexuals? I really don't begrudge you for homosexuality. It really doesn't bother me. I am disgusted with political correctness and the fact that just because you are part of a minority you feel your voice should count more and you only choose the democratic party to harbor your agenda.

It was pretty disgraceful to attack Bill Richardson because he didn't know if being gay was something one is born with or something one becomes later in life. Damn that's really important to you guys isn't it? Now what? Is this is going to have to be taught in school so we don't offend you? Its just one example of how gay rights has hijacked the democratic party.

Here's another example how this has put a damper in the fight for real immigration reform. I like may others who have adult children in a foreign nation have to wait like twenty years before my daughter can get residency in this country. We try to educate people on the real issues about immigration, like the inefficiency etc. and there are your buddies with their two cents worth whining about how unfair it is that you can't petition residency for some lover you found in Haiti. I agree that could be tragic but please stay away from us because when mainstream America hears this they just turn away. And don't expect this prejudice toward gay people to ever go away.

Did you ever notice how there are a lot of gay republicans? Why don't you try to open up the minds in that party? Hell there are even atheists in Bush's think tank. I'm an atheist do you think we should invade the democratic party and get us on the platform? We are discriminated against much more so than you. Was I born this way or did I just decide? Really I can't remember ever believing the stuff I was told but does it matter?

Really I just don't get it. Why do so many of you want to use the democratic party to advocate for same sex marriage? Or adoption rights? Forgive me for sounding heterosexist but that is really creepy. So much injustice and chaos in the world and suddenly this party has to take a hit over this.

And its in the media, its like I see news programs on my favorite channels like Gay News. Okay, isn't that like a news show with the title Black News? I don't see an Atheist News show? There are wonderful portrayals of homosex in films and art. From Fassbinder to Cocteau. Things I love, but the pc line is really hittin a raw nerve and it isn't just freepers and fundies.

Why the hell you want to be in an institution which is heterosex in nature I can't fathom but really I don't see why you guys shouldn't get married, it wouldn't bother me. Gee, that is really going to change everything. Isn't it? You'll be so happy. I will be. Because I'm tired of this being discussed as an important issue.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. I am so sorry my quest for equal rights offend you.

No where did I say we should have more of a voice, but we sure as fuck deserve a place at the table. As for discrimination against atheists vs. GLBT, no even close, bub! The fact that you can't accept we want to be treated fairly speaks volumes for you and, so predictably, you hide behind the "I hate PC" mantra. There is nothing "PC" about wanting equal rights.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. No assumptions about you because you are heterosexual...

....your own words have show what you are. Your continued use of "most gay" men really says it all, and it ain't about being PC.

But this really says it all...

"...and I don't feel comfortable about you adopting children. But most of all I really resent it that the democratic party has to accommodate you. And we lose elections because of you. And I'm just as mad that the republican party will not take you into their fold."

Not the thought police at all, because you can think what ever you want. I even support your right to spew homophobic filth, such as your last two post, however, perhaps it is you who really doesn't belong in the Democratic party because you don't like who is coming to dinner.

[hamnose]

96. Yes it is thought police

You make assumptions about most straight people I make assumptions about most gay men. Whats your point?
The fact that you don't have answers to my questions says much more.
My own words show what I am? Good, thats exactly how I think. I don't want you adopting children and I don't care if you get married or not.
And its time the democratic party realizes that we can not account for every fallen sparrow or predict every possible social interaction. You get marriage okay. And I say big f-ing deal.
What dinner table are you talking about? You would never invite a person like me to your table. You aren't inclusive, you never were. You are a stereotype I have come to know all too well. You can not tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with you and doesn't use gay-speak. That's my point.
And yes it is the thought police. I belong in the democratic party as much as anyone else, as much as you. Did it ever occur to you that most dems, for example, Hispanics and Blacks in the party accept you even less than I and are vehemently opposed to even gay marriage? Oh thats another question... sorry, you can't answer. Ever talk to people like this? I didn't think so. Perhaps it is us who really don't belong in the Democratic party because we don't like who is coming to dinner or maybe it works both ways: you don't want our filthy butts at what you erroneously consider to be YOUR table.

[Book Lover]

99. "What dinner table are you talking about?"

This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXZiuXRex5E&feature=related

[hamnose]

101. maybe, I have no idea what table he's talking about

Damn thats one funky table.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. You have posted some of the most bigoted shit I have seen in awhile.

You want answers to your questions? I will oblige. In the process, I am going to tear through your bigoted posts like a bibliophile through a book. Let's start from the beginning.

hamnose (64 posts) Thu Mar-13-08 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hey, you left out homosexism
Do you just make this stuff up?
You know I'm really happy for your sexuality. Maybe you could be happy for mine. It just makes everything so neat.
Or how 'bout I accept that I'm a heterosexist when you accept that you are a homosexist and we both work on that.

I don't recall asking for your "happiness" about my sexual orientation. This is was your second mistake. The first was that you didn't know what heterosexism was and assumed it was "made up." However, your second mistake was confusing sexuality and sexual orientation. While they have things in common, they are different things. I will not assume you know the difference, so I will explain in simple terms for you: sexuality refers to sexual behavior, whereas sexual orientation defines the attraction, desire, and emotional state of one's sexuality. Do you understand? Probably not, but it is a minor point, so, let's move on to other things. Finally, I do not have to "accept" your bias because I find it distasteful and potentially destructive.

hamnose (64 posts) Thu Mar-13-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
84. Its just so nitpickin
Can you honestly say that homosexuals do not have preferences or prejudices as do heterosexuals? I really don't begrudge you for homosexuality. It really doesn't bother me. I am disgusted with political correctness and the fact that just because you are part of a minority you feel your voice should count more and you only choose the democratic party to harbor your agenda.

All people are prejudiced. That is a simple fact of life and, more than likely, a natural instinct. What is bad is one takes prejudice to greater extremes and applies it to most or all members of a group. I have not posted one thing which would indicate I feel my voice should "count more" than any other group, well, except for bigots. You start showing your 'true colors' with the term "agenda." Ah, how I have become so used to hearing about the "Gay Agenda." Generally, I only hear about it from fundamentalists and right-wing hacks, so imagine my surprise to hear it here at a democratic board.

It was pretty disgraceful to attack Bill Richardson because he didn't know if being gay was something one is born with or something one becomes later in life. Damn that's really important to you guys isn't it? Now what? Is this is going to have to be taught in school so we don't offend you? Its just one example of how gay rights has hijacked the democratic party.

I have no idea what you are referencing in regards to Bill Richardson. The only thing I remember my community taking offense to was his use of the word "maricon" which is Spanish for "faggot." I imagine the African-American community would have been incensed had he used the word "nigger," or Arabs offended had he used the term "cameljockeys." The reason "nature vs. nurture" is so big in the GBLT community is because bigots use the idea that we "choose" to be GLBT and therefore, have made a choice wrong in the eyes of G-d, society, or what have you. So, yes, it is important to us. I love how you end the paragraph with the gay community has hijacked the democratic party. Yes, us uppity faggots and dykes, how dare we demand to be treated as equals!

Here's another example how this has put a damper in the fight for real immigration reform. I like may others who have adult children in a foreign nation have to wait like twenty years before my daughter can get residency in this country. We try to educate people on the real issues about immigration, like the inefficiency etc. and there are your buddies with their two cents worth whining about how unfair it is that you can't petition residency for some lover you found in Haiti. I agree that could be tragic but please stay away from us because when mainstream America hears this they just turn away. And don't expect this prejudice toward gay people to ever go away.

I love how you denigrate, not just gay people, but our relationships as well. I find it sad that we can't share a platform for real changes to immigration laws and policies because you'd rather pander to bigots than create laws which are equitable to all peoples, regardless of sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or other factors.

Did you ever notice how there are a lot of gay republicans? Why don't you try to open up the minds in that party? Hell there are even atheists in Bush's think tank. I'm an atheist do you think we should invade the democratic party and get us on the platform? We are discriminated against much more so than you. Was I born this way or did I just decide? Really I can't remember ever believing the stuff I was told but does it matter?

So? There are gay republicans. There are black republicans. Latino ones. Arab ones. Muslim and Jewish ones. What is your point? Ah, but it is your second question that reveals your true nature. Basically, you don't us 'fags' in your party, unless we know our place and if we don't, then we should try to open the minds of republicans. Well, honestly, democrats are usually easier to communicate with on issues of diversity. Why don't you join the Republican party and try to open their minds on issues of immigration? So, gays have "invaded" the democratic party? Like a virus maybe?

Really I just don't get it. Why do so many of you want to use the democratic party to advocate for same sex marriage? Or adoption rights? Forgive me for sounding heterosexist but that is really creepy. So much injustice and chaos in the world and suddenly this party has to take a hit over this.

Of course, you "don't get it." You are so mired in homophobia there is no way for you to "get it." So because there are other injustices, we should just sit at the back of the bus? (That is a metaphor, you don't seem to understand things like that.)

And its in the media, its like I see news programs on my favorite channels like Gay News. Okay, isn't that like a news show with the title Black News? I don't see an Atheist News show? There are wonderful portrayals of homosex in films and art. From Fassbinder to Cocteau. Things I love, but the pc line is really hittin a raw nerve and it isn't just freepers and fundies.

I have no fucking idea what you are prattling on about in this paragraph.

Why the hell you want to be in an institution which is heterosex in nature I can't fathom but really I don't see why you guys shouldn't get married, it wouldn't bother me. Gee, that is really going to change everything. Isn't it? You'll be so happy. I will be. Because I'm tired of this being discussed as an important issue.

Why do we want to be in an institution which is heterosexual by nature? Who said the institution is "heterosexual in nature?" Anyway, we want EQUAL rights. Why is that fact so hard for you to comprehend?

hamnose (64 posts) Thu Mar-13-08 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. But you are pc
There is no gay vs atheism. One could be both or neither. Oh! which is more discriminated against... you would care about that wouldn't you? Though that's pointless, and I must say you are blind to think you are a member of a minority which is more oppressed, neverless I'll begrudged you that. I can make the same argument even if I myself were gay and indeed I often find that my gay friends have similar observations:

Why do you want to be a part of what is traditionally a heterosexual institution?

Very slowly now...we want EQUAL RIGHTS. Is that really so difficult a concept for you to understand?!

If you want your lover to be your beneficiary isn't that something different? And doesn't that throw a monkey wrench into just about everything form insurance law to tax codes. I say that because wouldn't you agree there is an immense difference between the nature of Hetero and Homo relationships. One being the possibility of children? Not to even mention the cultural and social differences. I have known very few gay couples which last longer than a typical fundamentalist's marriage and thats not long.

What fun! More bigoted assumptions! First, I know many a heterosexual couple who are married because they love one another, not because they want children. What a fucking novel concept...marrying someone you love! Have you ever thought that some gay relationships don't last because of all the added pressure? Oh but wait, what about those crazy heteros? Don't 50% of their marriages end in divorce? I think it is laughable that you'd even mention cultural and societal differences as reasons for not wanting marriage.

These are social issues but if you want to make it a political issue why in bloody hell don't you try to make a difference where it is most needed? With those people who really don't want you to have equal rights.

We are trying to make a difference where it is most needed, in our country! Seems we are needed in the democratic party to as some here don't want us to have equal rights.

You are different I am different we all are different: why should I have to be careful not to assume that your spouse may or may not be of the same sex? Is it really offensive if I were to assume otherwise? Speaking for myself, it wouldn't offend me if you assumed I was gay. Should it?

Why make the assumption? Why not just wait until you know?

Isn't it just as offensive that most gay men assume that homosexuality is latent in all men?

"Most" gay men assume that homosexuality is latent in all men? That's a first for me. If anything, you have it backward. Most men assume gay men "just haven't met the right woman" or "want to be a woman."

How about other minorities such as the Moslem community. Should we ban public drinking or eating during Ramadan so as not to offend them?

This makes no sense. I am a firm believer in separation of "church" and state.

Most gay men hate and I mean really hate tv's and transexuals. Whats the word for that?

Again, another example of hyperbole. I have never seen any study that corroborates such a conclusion. BTW, hate of the transgendered is called "transphobia." You could figure that one out?

And so on.

Homosexism is just as valid a word as heterosexism. I know what it means, its obvious. I was pointing out how oblivious you are to your own prejudices. Just because I am heterosexual or some other non minority, you will automatically make assumptions about me and some of those assumptions are just as offensive as the assumptions I may make about you.

The only assumptions I made about you were based on your first post. Seems I was correct.

You have this way of thinking which is pretty much summed up as I am an oppressed minority and therefore the rules of logic need to be superseded to accommodate me. I agree much is unfair to you but I don't care as much as you would like me to. But you are wrong, I do accept that you would want to be treated fairly and should be treated fairly but then again its not my highest priority that you are able to get married. Honestly I have seen real suffering. And to speak volumes for myself I'm not always very sympathetic and yes I am prejudiced (as though you aren't) and I don't feel comfortable about you adopting children. But most of all I really resent it that the democratic party has to accommodate you. And we lose elections because of you. And I'm just as mad that the republican party will not take you into their fold. Now there's a challenge for you.

The typical musings of homophobia....I don't trust you around children (child molesters) and 'gays lose us elections.' "We don't want you, so go away."

Its predictable? okay, but Its not hiding: you are so pc all the way. Real thought police.

And finally...

hamnose (64 posts) Thu Mar-13-08 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Yes it is thought police
Edited on Thu Mar-13-08 10:14 PM by hamnose
You make assumptions about most straight people I make assumptions about most gay men. Whats your point?
The fact that you don't have answers to my questions says much more.
My own words show what I am? Good, thats exactly how I think. I don't want you adopting children and I don't care if you get married or not.

Again, your words show what you are.

And its time the democratic party realizes that we can not account for every fallen sparrow or predict every possible social interaction. You get marriage okay. And I say big f-ing deal.

How magnanimous of you. Thank you for your permission to grant us equal rights. :eyes:

What dinner table are you talking about? You would never invite a person like me to your table.

You obviously don't understand metaphors. BTW, you are damn right, I wouldn't let you sit at my literal dinner table because I don't tend to break bread (another metaphor) with those who don't care one way or the other if I am treated with respect and equality!

You aren't inclusive, you never were. You are a stereotype I have come to know all too well. You can not tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with you and doesn't use gay-speak.

No, you don't understand. I don't tolerate anti-gay bigotry! It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me, it is a matter of mutual respect for me as a human, of which you don't seem to share.

That's my point.
And yes it is the thought police. I belong in the democratic party as much as anyone else, as much as you. Did it ever occur to you that most dems, for example, Hispanics and Blacks in the party accept you even less than I and are vehemently opposed to even gay marriage? Oh thats another question... sorry, you can't answer. Ever talk to people like this? I didn't think so. Perhaps it is us who really don't belong in the Democratic party because we don't like who is coming to dinner or maybe it works both ways: you don't want our filthy butts at what you erroneously consider to be YOUR table.

So, other minorities have issues with homosexuality and we should abandon the democratic party in favor of the republican one? Talk about being devoid of logic! The democratic table should be for those who believe in the equality of all citizens, not just the ones they are comfortable with, and no, there should be no reservation at the table for bigots!

[Zuiderelle]

123. That's some bigoted pile of it, isn't it? So many RW talking points from one poster.

Thanks for summarizing that. Saves me a lot of trouble responding any further. :thumbsup:

[Duncan Grant]

142. Thank you!

I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate your post. That obviously took some time and effort - please know it was well worth it. :applause:

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

149. LMFHGAO!*

:rofl:

You are such a fucking gay-hating POS. Everyone, not just me, got your number, you sad homophobic, bigoted mother-fucker! But, the fact you "rose from the dead" to come speak to me has me giggling like a fucking hyena on pot! You can repeat your lies as often as you want, but asshole, anyone with the reading comprehension past 4th grade can see not only are you a bigot, but a fucking liar to boot!

*LMFHGAO = Laughing My Fucking Hot Gay Ass Off!

On edit: By the way, dumb-ass, it is kudos, not "cudos." "Spell check" is your friend, even for raging bigots, makes you look less stupid.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

93. "I am disgusted with political correctness"

Translation:

All those darkies, immigrants, women, disabled people and gay folk are spoiling your fun, right?
There's just no one left to make fun of, to take the jobs you don't want, or for you to just beat up on when you feel the need to blame someone in society for all that pisses you off. For all the things that were once just handed to you on the general principle that you are "the man"...the superior, straight white male.

Those damned minorities--how dare they no longer be willing to sit idly by and allow themselves to be the butt of the heterosexual, white male's jokes. What a bunch of spoil sports. Total crybaby whiners...how dare they? Whenever will they learn to stay in their place? Why can't they just be the butt of good old boy jokes, settle for status as "less than" in society and sit and wait to be told just how many rights you feel they are entitled to? When, oh when will they just shut the fuck up about all this equality nonsense?

:nopity:

Pardon me, while I go weep for all you've lost in this "too pc" world. :eyes:

[hamnose]

102. Okay dry your eyes I don't mean to ignore you

There is only so much time in the day. I see you've posted twice as a response to what I said. That other guy was pretty boring. Couldn't answer a thing.
You're up: So what "race" do you think I am?
Like I hate to be insulting but I'm pretty sure you got this schema for categorizing the races as most Americans including and especially those who like to think of themselves as of the "liberal" persuasion, which separates the races into a number of all encompassing groups: Caucasian, Black, Asian and Native American. You know, white black yellow brown? Ooops I forgot Hispanic. So based on my posts which racial classification do you I fit into? Oh straight white male you say? Try again.
Or rather and this is a question much more important since we are on a blog with no idea who we are communicating with except by virtue of what that other person has to say: is it relevant?
I'm talking to you: Is it relevant?
BTW Do you see my tears?
Tears of laughter
I don't hear your violin too well. Put some rosin on your bow.

[bliss_eternal]

104. Dude, back away from the meth....

...or glue, whatever the hell it is you're on. :crazy: Because clearly you're on some sort of hallucinogenic substance if you think any of that made any sense--or if you are under the impression I'd have "tears in my eyes" because of you.

Your racial background isn't relevant here. You obviously identify with the historically heterosexual male dominated aspects of society. Why wouldn't you? Every culture within America has been influenced on some level by the heterosexual, caucasian male. They are for the most part, the entity that controlled the most influential aspects of the world for eras. For example the news media, advertising, entertainment, government, etc.

It's not a shock to me that you could be something other than caucasian. The only surprising thing is if you are part of an ethnic minority, how it is that you would have so little empathy and compassion for glbt people. I mean considering what people of color experience in this country, why would you not understand glbt people's desire for equality?

[hamnose]

108. Dude you might need it

I don't think a person with a high school education should have too much trouble understanding my post. Sorry. Oh BTW thanks for the lesson on heterosexual male domination of all aspects of society. blah blah. Really I had no idea.

[bliss_eternal]

113. Awwww---someone needs a nap.

You sound cranky. :spray:

[Zuiderelle]

119. You need to try some different drugs.

:crazy:

[Chovexani]

145. This is the race you belong to.

Now GTFO and come back after you've evolved.

[bliss_eternal]

95. Your "nitpickin" comments....

...sound a lot like bigotry to me.

:puke:

[Book Lover]

98. Why are you a member of the Democratic party? (nm)

[bliss_eternal]

105. Good question.

Wonder if we'll get a response.

[hamnose]

110. You already got your response Bliss

Want more? You couldn't understand my first post, what can I say, I can't put things in any simpler terms. It's awfully easy to rattle your cage. You and that other fellow are incapable of thinking outside that cage. You can't accept that someone doesn't share your erroneous beliefs. Your are nevertheless entitled to them. There is no dialog no consideration even as a devil's advocate of an idea which doesn't fit into your nice cozy pre-screened package. Its kind of one sided conversation: your unarticulated outrage at whatever I may say.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. Your first post.

hamnose (66 posts) Thu Mar-13-08 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hey, you left out homosexism
Do you just make this stuff up?
You know I'm really happy for your sexuality. Maybe you could be happy for mine. It just makes everything so neat.
Or how 'bout I accept that I'm a heterosexist when you accept that you are a homosexist and we both work on that.

Not a damn thing in there about why you are a member of the Democratic Party.

[LeftishBrit]

115. God, what a stupid post (and I'm heterosexual by the way)

Try changing it to:

1950s version:

'Really I just don't get it. Why do so many of you want to use the democratic party to advocate for Black people's right to drink at white people's water fountains? Or to have the right to interracial marriage? Forgive me for sounding racist but that is really creepy. So much injustice and chaos in the world and suddenly this party has to take a hit over this...

Why the hell you want to be in an institution which is white in nature I can't fathom but really I don't see why you people shouldn't sit in the front of the bus; it wouldn't bother me. Gee, that is really going to change everything. Isn't it? You'll be so happy. I will be. Because I'm tired of this being discussed as an important issue.'


1960s version:

'Really I just don't get it. Why do so many of you want to use the democratic party to advocate for equal pay for women? Or allowing women to take traditional male jobs? Forgive me for sounding sexist but that is really creepy. So much injustice and chaos in the world and suddenly this party has to take a hit over this.

Why the hell you want to be in an institution which is male in nature I can't fathom but really I don't see why you women shouldn't take traditional male jobs, it wouldn't bother me. Gee, that is really going to change everything. Isn't it? You'll be so happy. I will be. Because I'm tired of this being discussed as an important issue.'


19th century British version (of course the language would need some changing:


'Really I just don't get it. Why do so many of you want to use the Liberal Party to advocate for working-class people's right to have their work hours regulated? Or to vote? Forgive me for sounding snobbish but that is really creepy. So much injustice and chaos in the world and suddenly this party has to take a hit over this...

Why the hell you want to be in an institution which is upper-class in nature I can't fathom but really I don't see why you poor people shouldn't vote; it wouldn't bother me. Gee, that is really going to change everything. Isn't it? You'll be so happy. I will be. Because I'm tired of this being discussed as an important issue.'

All of these would rightly be seen today as right-wing and prejudiced. And so is your post.

[LostinVA]

116. "you only choose the democratic party to harbor your agenda"

You just blew your cover.

[Zuiderelle]

117. "whining about how unfair it is that you can't petition residency for some lover you found in Haiti"

:wtf:

Where are these fucking bigots coming from? Leave us the hell alone with your hatred. I'm sick to death of it.

With people like you, I definitely "don't expect this prejudice toward gay people to ever go away."

[NMMNG]

141. Well, aren't you a piece of work?

You know what? Since you can't be bothered to give a shit about the many rights we don't have why the hell should I give a flying fuck about you? And whether you like it or not, LGBT people share many of the same problems you do so you're going to just have to get the hell over it.

BTW, you don't get to define what is or is not important to us, understand? Now go back to your cave where you belong.

[noamnety]

9. This is the same sort of mindset as Geraldine Ferraro

trying to equate oppression of the oppressed with "oppression" of the privileged.

Heterosexism (or heteronormativity) is the systemic marginalization of the GLB population. The effect - particularly on young adults, is that unless they are straight, they are left to feel isolated and abnormal.

There is a similar thing that happens to women and to people of color - we are also marginalized in history books and in literature - particularly in the textbooks that are considered the standard fare for public school education in this country. So things like the US Constitution are presented as though they were the brainchild of the white man, rather than the reality which is that it was modeled after the Iroquois constitution.

The result is that we get the impression that only straight white men act, only straight white men make decisions, only straight white men have accomplishments and are capable. This leaves the rest of us without role models and without envisioning ourselves doing much of these same sorts of things. So women daydream about getting married, or playing house. Young black children are more apt to daydream about doing the things they see other black people in the media being successful at - being musicians or athletes, because their other accomplishments are rendered invisible by the popular culture. Gays, lesbians, and bi's, they are marginalized even further into nonexistence entirely in our public schools.

And it's one thing to be my age and be able to think critically about it. But kids start developing their self-identities when they are too young to understand the system or use any critical thought in that way. Kids - all kids - begin forming mental images of what their lives will be like by listening to the stories of other people they identify with.

So marginalizing groups of people does real damage to those people (that's just one way it happens, as a reduction in role models in schools - just one way). And it's a systemic institutionalized thing. So it's not right at all to try to equate them, to try to reduce it to "you didn't accept my sexual orientation, and I didn't accept yours, so now we are even." It's not even when it's one individual doing this to you, and 99 individuals plus schools, churches, and governments doing it to the other person systemically from childhood on.

[mondo joe]

27. Please define "homosexism".

[hamnose]

91. the opposite of heterosexism

Its in the dictionary

[mondo joe]

97. I'm unaware of any cases of homosexism. You having a hard time with it?

[hamnose]

106. A bit, its one of the reasons we lose elections

DU is a different milieu but most democrats only grudgingly support the inclusion of civil unions into the platform of the party. We put up with it because it doesn't particularly offend us, but there it is and okay we generally accept the idea that it is only fair that gays have this right as well. An amendment to the constitution declaring marriage as the union between a man and a woman is offensive. Most of us don't like that idea at all. But its not like we really feel the urgency to get the civil unions guaranteed either. As for adoption rights you might be surprised that most democrats as most Americans are not keen on that idea at all. Are you really surprised? And its not like saying oh black people aren't ready for emancipation. Its very different. You know outside of your little suburban or gentrified neighborhoods most of you don't have any concept of what real oppression is. You really have no idea. I see so many people on these forums damning the U.S. and they have no perspective. Sure we killed the Native Americans our economy got powerful off the blood of innocents we have 3 million in prison or jail etc. etc. but there aren't many other nations which can say their hands are clean or which haven't done similar things and aren't desirous of such things. You want to see racism and prejudice go to Europe, the Middle East, take a stroll through Slovenia talk to a person from Taiwan who is of Chinese descent. Try to figure out what is a Macedonian with a Slavic, Bulgarian, Greek, or Moslem "Macedonian". Now try to have a dialog in which you disagree with a typical gay activist and see if you don't hear the same rhetoric and the same logic (or lack thereof). Its from the perspective of the victim but its the same ol crap. A lot of gay people suffer terrible injustice, being dicks isn't going to help. I don't expect a new vocabulary and etiquette from you don't expect it from me.

[Behind the Aegis]

112. What other anti-gay bullshit do you also believe?

"We put up with it because it doesn't particularly offend us,..."

How mighty kind of you. :eyes:

"An amendment to the constitution declaring marriage as the union between a man and a woman is offensive. Most of us don't like that idea at all. "

Really? Well that begs the question: are you against a Constitutional Amendment because it would be discriminatory or because you are against amending the Constitution?

"its not like we really feel the urgency to get the civil unions guaranteed either."

Did that statement answer my other question? (are you against a Constitutional Amendment because it would be discriminatory or because you are against amending the Constitution?)

"As for adoption rights you might be surprised that most democrats as most Americans are not keen on that idea at all. Are you really surprised?"

No, I am not surprised, nor do I doubt the other poster is surprised. Then again, most Americans weren't keen on Blacks being able to vote, marry white people, or go places where whites might be...seperate but equal was their mantra.

I think it is funny, in a sad way, you are telling gay people we don't understand "real oppression." Yes, we do understand it. We have for years. It is you who doesn't understand it.

Out of morbid curiosity, what other anti-gay shit do you believe to be true?

Do you believe...

• ...gays are responsible for AIDS?
  
• ...gay men are more likely to be child molesters?
  
• ...lesbians hate all men?
  
• ...gays are overly promiscuous?
  
• ...bisexuals are just "confused gays?"
  
• ...gays want to convert people?

[mondo joe]

114. We lose elections because gays think they're superior to straights?

?

[LostinVA]

124. Your photo must be next to the entry for the opposite of "not a troll"

[LostinVA]

28. Wow -- that makes zero sense

Do you even understand what the words you read above mean?

I guess Liberty Baptist is out on break. Shoo!

[Touchdown]

48. Clue of a heterosexist? Patronizing gay people.

"You know I'm really happy for your sexuality."

Well, I'm so comforted by that. I feel like a well protected child.:puke:

[LostinVA]

53. Well -- as long as he's happy for me

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

75. Is the happy for thee he a he?

I don't make assumptions.:P

I didn't bother looking at the profile, and you probably did, so you most likely got me there.:dunce:

[NMMNG]

72. Riiiiiight

:popcorn:

[bliss_eternal]

107. LOL!

:spray:

[readmoreoften]

79. No, you're an ignorant moron talking out your ass and he's a rational person.

Asking a question about gay invisibility isn't "homosexist", ya dumb fuck.

[Richard Steele]

103. You took the words right out of my mouth.

:thumbsup:

[DeSwiss]

6. Your question speaks to my mantra...

...that the silence and indifference of hets is giving tacit approval to homophobia. I know. I'm black and lived right in the middle of the civil rights conflict while bombs burst, molotov cocktails flew and militant groups armed themselves. And my parents watched and lived in fear themselves, as black man after black man was lynched for sport and to maintain and instill fear in the 20s and 30s. And all of it was possible due to the indifference of the majority who sat idly by and permitted things to get this way. And the same is happening now with LGBT's.

For me, the hazings, beatings and killings just became too much. I could not stay silent any longer. That's where cowards live. And since taking on and uttering my mantra over the past five years, my relatives don't visit as often. Particularly the very religious ones. Which means almost all of them. Most of my friends don't connect with me much now either. So be it. But this only makes their denials that much worse from my pont of view. Since I know they're aware of the impact that discrimination and hate can have on people's lives. So when I do see them I still cut them NO slack.

I will not be discouraged by the absence of travelers on the road to TRUTH.

===============================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[Smith_3]

10. In a way, heterosexuality IS the default situation

Kind of like right handedness is in a way also the "default" situation. There simply is a much larger proportion of people who are primarly heterosexual. I don't necessarly think that this is in itself a problem. It doesn't mean that one way is better or worse than the other. People just naturally assume that what they see the most is the "normal" way of things to be.

edit: Take for example a person who has an IQ of 150. He or she belongs to a part of society that makes up for less than 1%. Sometimes he or she might feel like many aspects of society are kind of streamlined for averagely smart people and that he or she is being ignored. I don't think that there is a solution for this person other than to accept that most people are different from him or her, and that he or she will have to seek out others from that 1% of society in order to be fully understood.

[readmoreoften]

88. Ah statistics...

I'm going to ignore that 10% of the population is LGBT. Only 12% of the US population is African-American. Should everyone assume that they are talking to a caucasian? Should the news media ignore African-American concerns? What about Israel? Only 4 percent of the population is Jewish. There are only 14 million Jews in the entire world. Most people in the US are Christian. When we address someone, should we assume they're Christian? Whiteness and Christian-ness are the "default" situation in the US. Ah...statistics. I suppose, if we really want to be international about it, we could assume that everyone is Asian, since the vast majority of the people in the world are. I guess we should also assume that people are desperately poor. We should also assume people are more likely to be female, because that's the case.

Some argue that femaleness is the genetic 'default' of an embryo before androgens spark a fetal change. According to microbiologist Anne Fausto-Sterling about 1.7% of the population falls somewhere in the continuum from male to female. For example, Androgen Insensitive XY infants will present as having labia and grow up to be 'girls' (girls with beautiful skin, very little body hair, soft bodies, feminine bone structure, full breasts, and long legs,...often the perfect supermodels) but they have testes, no primary female, sex organs, and are genetically male. A similar condition to AIS (all but in magnitude) are "men" who "look like men" except their bodies are somewhat androgen so they don't produce sperm...or enough sperm... you know, infertile 'men'.

Statistics are used to cut off the penises of XY infants whose phallus presents as too small before birth--2.0 centimeters to 4 centimeters is normal. Below 2.0 centimeters and the doctors might decide you're better off a girl. If you're an XX, your clitoris is supposed to be 0.35 to 0.8 centimeters at birth. Any larger than that, and they're going to perform cosmetic surgery on it to make sure you look 'natural.' That's only in the West, though. If your clitoris is too large in the Middle East, they're likely to raise you as male if at all possible--better to have a son.

Statistics has its uses. But deciding what part of the population should be 'assumed' as who should socially 'count' isn't a very good use of statistics. When people are told that they aren't a large enough segment of the population to be considered important, it's usually just a reasonable sounding way to say "I don't think you really matter as much. You're kind doesn't really show up on the radar."

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

131. Ive never bougt the 10% meme

The study was *seriously* flawed!

Not only were a full quarter of his study subjects in a single sex environment (of whom 44% had a homosexual experience). Homosexual in the study was defined as anyone who had had a single homosexual experience in the last. Secondly at least 5-10% of the study subjects were male prostitutes. His entire methodology in selecting his sample population is flawed.

Thirdly the definition of homosexual itself was bunk "ten percent of white American males were
"more or less" exclusively homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 65."

The statistic for females was five percent. The actual percentage of those thought to be *exclusively* homosexual for their entire lives was only four percent of men and two or three percent of women.

--

Not that any of this matters in assigning people their due human rights but if youre going to complain about statics don't use flawed data..

[Smith_3]

151. As a person who has never ever cared the least what other people do in their bedroom.

Or who they hold hands with in public, what skin color or national background they have for that matter (I intentionally exclude religion here since it is a content bearing concept. I myself am agnostic but view some beliefs as more screwed up as others), I don't see much of what society can do to eliminate "hetereosexism" as it is called here, other than grant full equality of homosexuals or transgendered by the law. That I am all for. As much as I am for full equality of women, blacks or chinese or whoever, by the law.

As far as being "present" in society, IMO that is up to homosexuals. Black people are strongly represented in culture, because they contributed largely to it. In fact, I think despite the fact that blacks are a minority, they as a group had the largest impact on what people consider "american culture". And there are, in fact, as far as I know many gay actors and TV shows with and about gay people. Where I live we have Christopher street day annually.

What I am saying is, if you want to be "present" in society, then work on it. If you think there aren't enough children's books about transgendered people, then write some. If you have a story to tell, tell it. I'm certainly not going to stop you. And then again statistics, I think it is somewhat natural that the "presence" of a phenomenon in cultural life is somewhat proportional to its frequency of occurence.

And, by the way, with regards two how to deal with transgendered infants, I don't think there is an easy answer to that, since it is hard to judge what would make the infant the most happy when he or she grows up.

[Mithreal]

11. 8 people voted before me and I am the first to say homophobia is worse?

Heterosexism being just as bad? One, possible insensitivity and the other is intolerance and hate.

Talking about female prostitutes does not implicitly deny the existence of male prostitutes. Subconsciously male prostitution may not even elicit the same negatives female prostitution does, despite similar dangers. There may be another explanation for this sort of example.

Am I a heterosexist if I refer to my spouse as my wife? Maybe the words husband and wife shouldn't even be used on discussion boards? Is there a difference between the two, other than that one conveys more information that isn't relevant? When talking about people's spouses, most people use a default constructions for SIMPLICITY. It is nothing more than that necessarily. I realize I am overstating the op but there may be some who find the use of any word other than spouse as being heterosexist, maybe? Why not agree for everyone to use the word partner to show solidarity until all people are allowed to marry whomever they want?

I would expect language to evolve to be more non-heterosexist and less irritating if we continue to become a more open and tolerant society.

I realize I may be totally missing something, but this seems like an overreaction.

[laststeamtrain]

12. Stupidity is worse. Oops! Wrong poll. n/t

[AlertLurker]

13. Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a homophobe.

I often wonder if another word would be better?

[Echo In Light]

15. Fine line of difference

Although I'm sure you're correct, and that there are examples of this, I've not personally encountered anyone who was against, or in "disagreement" with, homosexuals, who in fact did not harbor at least some of the prevailing homophobic traits. Just listen - language always gives people away.

Granted I haven't spent much time around anyone who fits that typically rightist, rabidly anti-gay stereotype, but have certainly known people who, again, although not a frothing-at-the-mouth hater, definitely perceive homosexuals as "lesser than," or hold to that uptight Americanism regarding anyone generally considered weird/different i.e. non conformist

[JerseygirlCT]

18. How do you "disagree" with homosexuality?

That's sort of like disagreeing with blue eyes.

[LostinVA]

32. Uh oh -- my wife is a "homosexual" AND she has blue eyes

She's screwn!

[LeftyMom]

55. Something tells me your wife can take care of herself.

She's 85 lbs of pure evil, she is. ;)

[LostinVA]

58. 97lbs of pure evil -- and she's freakishly strong for her size

[youthere]

125. I disagree with blue eyes.

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

128. Blueeyeophobe

[youthere]

129. I'm so ashamed.

[mondo joe]

25. Of course they are - WTF is "disagreeing with homosexuality"?

There's nothing to disagree with. Homosexuality exists.

[JerseygirlCT]

Let's take a strong stand and disagree with gravity tomorrow

Whaddya say?

[Toasterlad]

82. Jerseygirl, I Wish I Were Straight So I Could Marry You.

Thank you for summing up that mind-numbing ignorance with one brilliant, off-hand line.

[JerseygirlCT]

86. Oh man, now I'm blushing

Thanks, Toasterlad. High praise, indeed!

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

132. One can disagree and not hate..

You can think its a sin
You can think its not natural
You can think its not healthy

You can think (and be wrong/right) on these things without denying people their rights and without persecuting them.

--

Now a person who has these positions because of their faith, probably, should feel the same way about something like divorce or adultly. But not too many would argue for different rights for those people this, consistency, would demand that we treat all people the same weather or not we like/disagree with their lifestyles..

[Solon]

133. It is still a bigoted position...

Whether it comes from their "faith" or not. Also, the second part of your post sounds like modern, more articulate, racists. A lot of them would say they believe in equal rights BUT that the races should be separate, or shit like that.

The problem is that being gay is an immutable characteristic, the same as eye color and skin color, and "disagreeing" with it is being bigoted.

[LostinVA]

134. This poster believes what he just posted

I've been down this road with him before.

[Solon]

135. I figured that, some of the worse bigots out there are those who claim not to be bigots.

This guy seems like the type who would say "I'm not Homophobie but..." Just like many "closet" racists would say "I'm not Racist, but..." same type of shit from both types of bigots.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

136. Well Strictly speaking

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Is the most used definition of Bigotry and I don't think anything I said falls into that category. Nothing in that statement is intolerant.

I also said *nothing* about separation, I just stated that you can disagree with someone behaviors (be they sexual, or what vehicle they drive) without think that person should be treated differently. I think, perhaps, you're reacting too strongly. You may certainly have your reasons for this..

"The problem is that being gay is an immutable characteristic, the same as eye color and skin color, and "disagreeing" with it is being bigoted."

One *can* read it that way and be technically correct I think, however, when you put people who might just think that homosexuality is a sin but still love their fellow man in a bucket with neonazi's you cheapen how sick some people can be.. (its like a moderate case of Goodwins law)

[Solon]

140. I have a huge problem with religions that deny human nature...

and natural human behaviors as well. Human beings are social animals, and one of the ways they are social is through sexual relationships with those they are attracted to and/or fall in love with. Sex can be a healthy expression of love and social behavior. Its not comparable to people driving SUVs, that's a type of harm, and SUVs aren't exactly one of the basic human needs for the species to survive, indeed, they may be exactly the opposite.

Humans have basic needs, and have behaviors to reflect that, this includes finding shelter, eating food, and fucking, we need to acknowledge at least that much to have a conversation. Religion has little to do with it, most of the shit they think is sin is rather ridiculous, and Homosexuality is about as much of a sin in the Bible as eating shellfish. Anyone who focuses on one and not the other is just being a bigoted ass.

[Firespirit]

148. It's soft hate.

It's the difference between a neo Nazi comparing black people to apes and a little old southern white lady not wanting to be near "those people."

I assume, since you use the term "sin," that you are coming from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. The fact that you can disregard medical science and scientific findings about homosexuality, and tell an entire group of people that THE WAY THEY ARE is "sinful," says more about you than anything else. And yes I know that fundamentalist theology teaches that human nature is sinful, we're all bad, etc., but by singling out LGBT people, you are saying that THEIR human nature is "extra sinful" above and beyond the sinfulness of nice straights.

Secondly, it is natural for GLB people. It is unnatural for you. What's so hard about this.

Finally, how is it unhealthy? If you mean STDs, then worldwide, a majority of them, including AIDS, are spread by heterosexual contact. Percentage wise, in the U.S. there probably is a greater percent of men in the gay population than the heterosexual population who are HIV positive. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Lesbian sex, however, spreads less disease than anything, so it evens out.

Spreading misinformation and prejudice about a group, and ignoring science that proves you wrong, is soft hate.

[LostinVA]

31. Do you disagree with "homosexuality?"

If so, why?

[readmoreoften]

89. That's true. If I disagree with water, I'm not called an aquaphobe...

...I'm called illogical. But maybe 'anti-water' would be a better term for what I am.

[Zuiderelle]

121. Another word would be better. Instead of "disagrees" you should say "is bigoted towards"

[Sock Puppet]

130. Good point.

Perhaps "homohater"? Is that what you were driving at?

[Breeze54]

14. One has Hate in the definition. The other doesn't.

I think hate is worse then presumptions.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. I think what you're calling heterosexism is most often a case

of ignorance. I don't necessarily mean that in a derogatory way. Statistically, heterosexuals are the majority - a large one. And many gay folks continue to live at least partly in the closet. So many, many people can spend years of their lives without even realizing that they know and interact with gay folks. It's just not a part of their consciousness. IOW, there's no intent there.

Homophobia, as you define it, is much more active. It's not just about not thinking about homosexuality, it's going all the way to the other extreme: not just thinking about it, but hating and fearing it.

The first is undoubtedly helped by education. And kind reminders to think in a broader sense. The second also requires education, but I think it's a longer process in most cases. And takes actually getting to know the gay people they've found it so easy to demonize. Much harder to demonize gays when you've gotten to know that nice guy down the street who has just come over with his snow-blower to clear your driveway, you know?

[Ordr]

17. With all due respect, I don't think "heterosexism" exists.

[noamnety]

21. You must have gone to a school very different than mine, then.

Where I went to school, we read no books about gay people. Not a single one. Of all the movies we watched in our classes, none were about gay people.

In our textbooks, when people were married, their spouses were often mentioned as part of their bios. But if the people were gay, there was no mention of their personal life; it was erased.

Children's books and disney movies from when I was a child were entirely about heterosexual relationships. I don't remember reading a single fairy tale where a princess falls in love with another princess, or a prince falls in love with another prince.

As an adult, I remember some attempts to introduce those stories, which resulted in all sorts of nastiness.

So we have x% of the population which is gay, but the world we present to our kids is 100% filled with straight people.

I haven't clicked on your profile, but I'm wondering where you live where the people are so open that the GLBT community isn't marginalized in children's literature, children's tv shows, in high school textbooks, in your educational experience as a whole.

[Ordr]

22. I really do think it must have been the schooling, then.

I live in southern Connecticut.

I've been out of high school for almost ten years but I do distinctly remember gay/lesbian oriented subject matter routinely interspersed with the more "conventional" material. The "GLBT" (I don't think it was called that, though) community was pretty strongly represented and was free to do pretty much whatever they wanted. Yes, there was some shit thrown their way by one or two jock-type idiots every so often but it was definitely minimal and harshly punished.

The biggest reason why I disagree with that concept of "heterosexism" is simply because, in more "conservative" (read: religious-right) communities, there are active forces requiring that such material is left out of the schools. There is a pretty good chance that gay/lesbian-oriented material has been taught or discussed, only to be shot down by a group of bigoted zealots. That, in my opinion (which may be wrong but I think I'm pretty right with this one), is all it really is. Bigotry by agenda-pushing zealots.

[Amimnoch]

24. Wow! What a wonderful environment to be raised in!

My own life could very well have had a very different start off in such an environment.

Myself, i was born and raised in the small southern town of Breaux Bridge, LA. My father was the archetypal southern father figure.. the bread winner, the disciplinarian, and for the most part the decision maker in the family. My mother could have been June Cleaver. I was raised under French Catholic doctrine, and in my high school, being openly gay could very well have been deadly, at the very least it would have gotten me a LOT of beatings.

I was raised to be a "good heterosexual christian conservative". In high school, I noticed that I couldn't look at the developing girls the same way I looked at the guys.. and I felt HUGE amounts of shame for my feelings.. and I kept them to myself. I'd try to, and pretend to have the same interest in girls that the other guys had, and would make excuses to myself on why those feelings weren't there. At that time in my life, I'd have gladly joined in on gay bashing.. heck it would have given me a chance to beat up a part of myself that I despised, and didn't understand.

Funny thing is, it took another homophobic institution, namely the US Navy for me to finally find myself, find others like me, and come to accept what I'd fought so hard to suppress for all of those years.

[noamnety]

30. Can you name 3 disney movies?

Can you name three disney movies with a gay couple? (Doesn't have to be the main characters even, supporting roles would be fine, two moms for instance)

Can you name three children's books?

Can you name three children's books with a gay couple?

Can you name three movies you watched in high school?

Can you name three movies you watched in high school with gay characters?

----------------
Have you ever heard the media refer to a straight politician's spouse as their spouse without saying their "heterosexual spouse"?

Have you ever heard the media refer to a gay politicians partner as their partner without saying their "gay" lover, or Congressman So and so, who is gay, and their partner ..."

I just don't see any evidence in stories or in the press that homosexuality is portrayed as part of the normal part of life.

[Ordr]

34. Replies (sort of)

Can you name three disney movies with a gay couple? (Doesn't have to be the main characters even, supporting roles would be fine, two moms for instance)

I can name exactly zero Disney movies that address any homosexual issues. Disney isn't exactly the bastion of equality. Walt had some rather unashamed Nazi sympathies so I'm not really surprised with this one.

Can you name three children's books?

Can you name three children's books with a gay couple?

Can you name three movies you watched in high school?

Can you name three movies you watched in high school with gay characters?

I said in my above post that I really can't name specifics (other than that comedy "In & Out in my satire class). I fully admit that my school was not the rule and was almost certainly an exception.

Regarding everything else that you said: I agree with you that ALL of it is a problem. However, I don't agree with the word "heterosexism". Perhaps "heterocentric"? The -centic suffix generally works regarding education issues, such as our "eurocentric" view of history.

[Terran]

37. I don't think you're understanding the concept.

Heterosexism is, for example, when every commercial you see on television depicting a loving couple depicts a man and a woman, and never a same-sex couple. I assume you've been exposed to that sort of thing in your lifetime, yes? For heterosexual people, it's beneath their notice, just background; but it's quite different if you're not heterosexual.

[Ordr]

39. I do agree.

However, I would argue that it seems to be more "heterocentric" than "heterosexist". It might just be a semantic argument but the former seems inaccurate.

[Terran]

45. Semantics--agreed

It's a fine point. I do see the -centric concept as implying a natural and 'legitimate' orientation towards one pole or focus that carries no particular harm with it. The -sexist concept obviously implies a form of bias that includes bigotry, albeit a passive sort. As a gay man, the latter strikes me as what describes the matter better, but that's my biased opinion. Like I said, the "harm" involved is nothing more than the awareness of being a mostly non-included minority. Some people even prefer that status, actually. It doesn't describe the actual harm done to GLBT people by other aspects of our situation (e.g., legal deprivations).

[Ordr]

46. You've convinced me.

This is a profound rarity, lol.
:)

[Terran]

52. LOL, cool!

:hi:

[seabeyond]

19. i listen to the men on this board talk women, and wonder if men are like this

and if so.... just a huge eeeewwwww. i am married to a great guy and treats me terrific and respectful, and i give him the same. but i listen to so many men here, and i wonder if this is how men truly are and how they truly feel about women.

i have learned recently i cannot even get on the threads and listen to men. they reduce themselve to pathetic, yet all the while they are braggingly flopping their penis's around to show what a male they are by denigrating female.

it has been just the last decade of seeing males outwardly behaving this disrespectfully. they feel conditioned. like if they dont make a crude or disdaining comment about woman, they arent male enough

[Echo In Light]

20. "it has been just the last decade of seeing males outwardly behaving this disrespectfully"

Blatant sexism runs rampant in fascist states. And it manifests in either gender: no shortage of rightward leaning, "macho" women out there nowadays.

[Amimnoch]

23. Well, so far I'm the only gay that thinks homophobia is worse.

While heterosexism may be the harder obsticale for us to overcome politically than homophobia these days.. Homophobia is a documented and recorded killer of people, to the best of my knowledge heterosexism has not. At worst heterosexism plays a big part in making our struggle for equal rights under the laws more difficult to obtain, as it makes it easier for people to trivialize our struggle for equal rights, and while that is a huge obstical of no small stature, it falls pretty short of comparing it to the ones who absolutely hate us and everything about us, and would not only turn their head, but cheer our deaths, imprisonment, or any of a large number of "final solutions" true homophobes would seek for us.

[mondo joe]

26. Can't distinguish between the two. I think they have the same root.

[youthere]

29. I voted homophobia...

People are killed and lives are destroyed because of homophobia...if I read the definition of heterosexism correctly, I believe that it's largely due to ignorance and societal conditioning...but there isn't the violent element like you have with homophobia.

JMO.

[gollygee]

33. My immediate reaction is homophobia

but I'm part of the privileged group and it is sometimes hard for us to see our privilege.

Maybe homophobia is more immediately hurtful to people, but heterosexism probably allows it to continue and be so common.

So I don't know.

Even though I have a family member who is a lesbian in a long term relationship, and my 5-year-old daughter has grown up around that relationship and definitely sees that it is normal, and we have other GLBT people in our circle as well, when she talks about marriage and what-not she always assumes couples are hetero. I've talked to her about relationships that aren't m-f but the societal forces that push that assumption are pretty strong.

[Terran]

35. Er...duh

No one gets killed because of homophobia, so the answer to your question is pretty freaking obvious, I think. Heterosexism is the default because heterosexuals are by the far the majority. I'm gay, and it's something I just live with, to be honest--much like non-Christians putting up with the pervasive Christian majority, or African-Americans having to live in a mostly white society. It's not possible to force it to change, although in my lifetime I have detected a slight marginal shift in the matter for the better.

[LostinVA]

36. "No one gets killed because of homophobia"

Ummm...WTF?

[Terran]

38. Oops, sorry, it's early for me

I meant to say, No one gets killed because of heterosexism." "Duh." =]

[youthere]

127. That's what I thought you meant.

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. Heterosexism doesn't kill people n/t

[Creideiki]

41. I'm going with both as bad

It's obvious that homophobia frequently leads to immediate violent acts.

Heterosexism is a little subtler, but still has a strong effect, though. Think about the suicide rate among gay teens. Continually tell someone that their differences make them worthy of being ignored, or worse, disdain at an age where social acceptance is pretty much critical to self-image seems pretty causative of self-destructive acts.

[xchrom]

42. fascinating!

i don't think i can vote in this poll -- cause i have to really think about this.

on a personal level - i've lived a very seedy life -- involved with some pretty unsavory characters both gay and straight.

i would certainly say that women sex workers and their clients{if they are known} certainly suffer from an extraordinary stigmatization that i don't think happens in the gay community with a parallel group.

i would also say that women sex workers ellicit a violent response in some people -- that parallels{but is not the same} the violence committed against lgbtq folk.

[IndianaJones]

43. it has taken my time on this so-called liberal message board to come to the conclusion...

that homophobia is the most pervasive form of bigotry in our society.

homophobia is worse imo.

[LeftishBrit]

44. I think that homophobia is worse, as it frequently involves hate and sometimes violence..

however, heterosexism frequently enables homophobia.

[zorahopkins]

49. You've Omitted "T"

You have omitted the "T" in GLBT --

Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Trans-gendered.

What do you call the presumption that no one is transgendered? Or that transgendered people don't count?

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Yes, I did. Please see post #5 for the rationale. n/t

[mainegreen]

50. I would disagree with your second example of heterosexism.

It is in no way anti-orientation to assume that someone's partner isn't of the opposite sex. In the large majority of cases, this is correct, outside of specific contexts that might negate this. This is not the same as assuming all partners must be of the opposite sex. It is completely normal and reasonable to run under assumptions based on probabilities. The problem comes in if you find out the opposite is true and this bother you/you react badly/think its wrong etc or if you refuse to accept the opposite could be true or even be normal and equivalent.

If I'm in a gay bar I'm going to assume that any given person there is gay. This isn't homosexism. It's just the probable default. Now if I assumed they all were gay as no person there could possibly be straight, well that would be homosexism.

I do agree with your first part of heterosexism though; too often in cases relating to prostitution/rape/etc the assumption is one way, and often shock, disbelief and derision are the reaction that it could possibly be any other way.

IMO.

[varelse]

54. They are both as bad and I am not GLB.

It is pretty much the same problem as when people assume the "default" American is white, making non-white Americans some kind of "exception" in their minds, or when people assume a default member of a profession (doctor, lawyer, etc) is male, so they treat female members of those professions as "exceptions" to the "rules" built into their prejudiced worldview.

[Occam Bandage]

56. How does heterosexism differ from heteronormativity?

[Behind the Aegis]

57. What is "heteronormativity?"

Edit: Never mind. I looked it up. They are about the same, though "heteronormativity" is more limited to 'queer studies' and "heterosexism" is more widely recognized. Thanks for teaching me a new word!

[Occam Bandage]

59. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

Looking at both the heterosexism and heteronormativity pages, I think they're largely the same thing, just from different angles.

[Behind the Aegis]

61. You responded before my edit.

I agree, they seem to be similar, it just depends on which circles one's runs as to which term will be used, though "heterosexism" seems to be more well known.

[Occam Bandage]

62. And thank you for teaching me a new word, as well.

I was aware of heteronormativity, but was unfamiliar with heterosexism.

[galledgoblin]

60. in my experience, it's much easier to confront homophobia than heterosexism

much of the homophobia I've encountered comes from people not knowing any gays and building up strawmen in their mind. confront them and say "y'know, I'M gay" or "my SISTER is gay" etc and they not only back down but they even learn from the experience and can stop hating.

or, they are just horrible hateful people who will never change, and there's no point to wasting time and energy, so I just ignore them.

heterosexism on the other hand is so ingrained and I think a much more recently recognized problem. it's not as hateful, it's unconsciously labeling glbts as the "other".

pardon the blunt phrasing, but it's lynching vs. separate drinking fountains. a southerner in 1950 who sees how horribly wrong lynching is might try to defend separate but equal.

[Firespirit]

83. That's a good point

Blatant hate is considered unacceptable in most circles today. It is welcome with the Dobson crowd, but virtually nowhere else, and those who do it get called out.

Heterosexism is harder to call out. Quite often, those who try it are accused of whining, being overly PC, and so forth.

[Touchdown]

63. The concept of the "Heterosexual Assumption"

This was coined a little over a decade ago by some civil rights experts (can't remember who).

Any how. Much like what you define heterosexism to be, HA is the belief that everyone is heterosexual unless proven gay or an otherwise stereotype were to surface to question the assumption.

Example: Professor Dumbledore. Before JK Rowling let it be known that Dumbledore was gay, everybody assumed he was straight (even I never picked up on it). In reality, the character has had no personal relationship beyond friendships in any of the 7 books she wrote about him. When Rowling outed him, many people protested, some out of homophobia, but others because their assumptions had been proven wrong and challenged. Even those who thought this revelation was no big deal, still wondered what Rowling's motivation was in saying this after the books were written, not really grasping the concept that the entire HP series is about challenging status quos and assumptions about anybody. The same went for the X-Men films because the actor (Ian McKellan) who plays Magneto is a gay man, as if that would make the Magneto character gay too. Pretty dumb.

Second, the ever so popular activity on DU to assign gayness on our political enemies, even those who have no indications of it. It's one thing to come to a conclusion about Craig, Gannon, Foley, etc. since they're pretty obvious. It's another to assume this about John Ashcroft just because he's a homophobe. This belief is that anti-gay bigotry doesn't really exist, and those who engage in it are just closet cases. It makes for a very easy answer to straight DUers who don't have to think too deep into the issue. George Bush isn't gay, no matter how much you would like him to be, and for that matter... Why would you want him to be? What's your motivation behind assigning "the GAY!" on Bush, Rummy, Ashcroft, Limbaugh, douche-bag du-jour?

[Chovexani]

73. That was not actually the first incident with Rowling, the first was racial oddly

There was a vocal minority in the fandom who had conniptions when Book 6 came out, because she described a minor Slytherin character who up till then hadn't even been assigned a gender (Blaise Zabini) as a black boy. There was a loud group of fans who'd latched onto this character and projected all these weird ass fantasies on him that were then soundly beaten down by a single sentence in Book 6. They lost their shit, too. It sparked an awful lot of conversation in the fandom about race.

Also, I wouldn't say everyone assumed Dumbledore was straight. A great many people in fandom picked up on the Dumbledore/Grindlewald subtext before JKR ever said anything. And even before then, waaay back around Book 3 there was some speculation. But fandom tends to be more progressive about these things than mainstream people (it's also filled up with LGBT folks).

[bobthedrummer]

64. Heterogeneity is normative in the natural order of things-except in biased statistical bs

I suppose there are personal standard deviations to this crap along your own personal correlation matrix-which have absolutely NO FACE VALIDITY just like this DU poll. Skinner mentioned that DU polls are meaningless last fall, he speaks the truth about that.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Hit a nerve? n/t

[bobthedrummer]

68. Post it at your other less frequented web site. The answer to your query is no. eom.

[Behind the Aegis]

77. Some how I doubt your response.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libodem]

65. All evil sprouts

from fear and hatred of women. I think the problems that gay people have stem from the same root as subjugation of womankind. No facts, no linky, no backup article, just my opinion.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Personally, I would agree with your opinion.

It may not be the source of all evil, but it does play more than its fair share.

[libnnc]

69. I would explain the two thusly

Here's how I comprehend it...

Homophobia is like blatant racism. Heterosexism is like "soft bigotry" or taking for granted the privileges that heterosexuality has in this society. Heterosexism, like "soft bigotry" is more acceptable because it is couched in softer language. Does that make sense?

edit to add: they're both harmful -- one is more direct and overt than the other

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. I've never feared being dragged to death behind a volvo wagon. n/t

[NMMNG]

71. They're equally as bad

Mainly because Heterosexism leads to Homophobia.

[Chovexani]

74. I think the two are so deeply intertwined

That it's really impossible to say where one starts and the other stops. One necessarily leads to the other, kinda like a Moebius Strip of Fail.

I answered both are as bad, for that reason.

[foxeyes2]

78. My thoughts

Well I voted that Homophobia is worse.
I think that they are indeed intertwined but I think the results are different in the way I view the terms.
Homophobia is visible and makes GLBT people targets of discrimination and/or violence. I think it proves we exist and makes us wonder if we are safe
Heterosexism is usually invisble and makes us invisble as well.
I think it makes us feel like we do not exist and makes us wonder if we are real.
The wounds that both cause is real and it cuts to the essence of our being.

[Firespirit]

80. Somewhat unusual response here

Short answer: They feed on each other. Portrayal of one group to the near-exclusion of the others marginalizes the other groups, enabling fear and hate of the "other" to fester.

Longer answer: In this poll I identified as GLB, but that's because my orientation is one that most people don't know about, and most of those who do know about it refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate. I'm asexual, but I call myself "bi-romantic" in general. I can tell you from personal experience that it is frustrating and depressing to exist in a world where literally every other group assumes you are interested in something that you're not, and if you say you're not then they call it repression or pathology. These responses are the equivalent of heterosexism and homophobia to me, and they most definitely feed on and enable each other.

[Toasterlad]

81. Of Course Homophobia is Worse.

Quite frankly, if I were straight, I'd probably assume most people I met were straight, too. Know why? Because most people ARE. We live in a straight world, and that's not going to change. Does that mean that we shouldn't have the same rights and privileges that straight people have? Of course not. But it does mean that we shouldn't be so thin-skinned that we equate assumed indifference or casual non-acknowledgment of our orientation with hatred or prejudice.

No one will ever make a convincing argument that tying someone to a fence and leaving them to die because they're gay is on the same level as some telemarketer asking to speak to my wife when they call. It's insane to try.

Homophobia leads to violence against gay people. Heterosexism leads to faux pas. I can live quite easily with the latter.

Let's worry about being mistaken for straight AFTER we stop the redneck assholes from killing young men and women, okay?

[uppityperson]

94. Thank you. I've been trying to figure out how to reply to this and I agree with your post.

Rational and reasoned and succinct. Thank you.

[NMMNG]

100. Most people may be straight

But as I said previously, I believe that the notion that straight is the default (and therefore, to many, the "proper" orientation), it helps lead to homophobia. It's much the same way that because the majority of Americans are Christian most of them assume that everybody is, and should be, Christian as well.

If we got rid of the heterosexism I think we'd go a long way towards eradicating homophobia.

[slackmaster]

120. Heterosexuality is the default the same way right-handedness is the default

Left-handedness isn't an abnormal condition, but it is relatively rare and assuming that people are right-handed is not unreasonable in most situations.

I've heard of southpaws of past generations being forced to try to do things in a right-handed manner.

[NMMNG]

137. Left handedness isn't an abnormal condition

But historically it has taken on negative connotations, hence the push for lefties to use their right hands. That was as wrong as the attempt to make gay people play straight because it's assumed being gay is abnormal.

[Echo In Light]

122. More complex still as misogyny is crucial to homophobia

Women are still considered by some as less due to being perceived as weaker and more emotional than men, which is utter nonsense, yet many still abide these "traditional" belief systems.

The key difference is social conditioning: women are allowed to express the full spectrum of human emotion, with some social tsk-tsking if too aggressive, as where men are still, even after the civil rights movements, feminism, etc, largely conditioned culturally to suppress 'feminine' emotions {which are actually gender neutral} in favor of the subsequent hostility/aggression, which, in the "traditional" sense, makes for being a better {"better" = uncritical, ignorant, repressed} Work Horse, and/or soldier.

From this ideal, homosexual men are then perceived as being more woman-like, more feminine, which results in a sense of betrayal which, to the homophobe, warrants loathing and various hostilities/violence.

This likewise explains why many men don't become enraged, or "grossed out" and feel the need to inflict violence upon lesbians, or, in many instances in youth culture, pseudo-lesbians i.e. women programmed to perform as cultural "eye candy" as a means of self subjugation.

[NMMNG]

138. That's very true

It's sad that being "woman like" is a bad thing. :-(

[Echo In Light]

150. Just don't expect those of this mindset to acknowledge it directly...

Deny, deny, deny.

[Lilith Velkor]

126. And biphobia

It's not so bad for women, but for bi guys, it really sucks.

[NMMNG]

139. That's a whole different can of worms

To straights bisexuals are just "confused" or "really promiscuous" and to some gays they're "traitors". What a mess. As usual men get the worst of it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

144. That is kind of like saying a predominantly Christian society leads to anti-Semitism

Heterosexism is caused by indifference and ignorance. Homophobia is a deliberate mental (and too often physical) attack. I don't see how heterosexism can be worse than homophobia. As I posted above, no one has ever died solely because of heterosexism.

I think it is a stretch to say that heterosexism leads to homophobia, although I will concede that heterosexism can be taken to such an extrem that it becomes homophobia. But even there, it is homophobia that causes the harm.

[Toasterlad]

146. Don't Necessarily Disagree With What You're Saying, Buff....

However, while homophobia could not exist without heterosexism (granted), there is a HUGE leap between the two. And somewhere along the way, a choice is made. There are millions of heterosexist people out there (by far, the vast MAJORITY of people) who would never think of harming another person just because they're different. They're not the ones we need to worry about.

I don't believe heterosexism will EVER be eradicated, nor do I think that's an admirable goal. However, I DO think homophobia will, eventually, be marginalized to the lunatic fringe of society. This is a VERY admirable goal, and one that history tells us is achievable. 100 years from now, people may still be assuming everyone they meet is straight, but they'll regard the concept of refusing to allow two men or two women who love each other the right to marry as ludicrous. I have no doubt about this.

[TechBear_Seattle]

143. Very well stated, thank you. n/t

[slackmaster]

118. Heterosexism as defined here is perfectly reasonable in many situations

Because a substantial majority of people are exclusively heterosexual.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.