Homophobia compared with racism

[clive3300]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Now is there any need for that, JUST as people

> were beginning to get along?

Only because James was unbelievably understanding to some excessively aggressive posts saying essentially he couldnt ask nor have an opinion. Reminds me of the "dodgy peckham rye" thread.

[KalamityKel]

:-| not wanting to spark off an argument but it seemed rather the other way round clive... nevermind... we are not children playing in a playground and as SeanMac pointed out there was just no need for that kind of comment.

[James]

CWALD, very interesting post. I admire your idealism, it's something which is sadly lacking in today's society. I would add though that one of the major evils of Thatcher was to sell the working-classes a kind of mindless individualism - the symbol of which being the whole 'right to buy' thing. (It wasn't her 'right to sell'!)

She helped to play a part in the breakdown of society as a whole by setting different groups and interests up against each other. So now we all live in our own little ghettoes. How sad.

>>"However as you are white you may never have any opinions, ask any questions nor in fact talk about black people except to apologise."

Just worked out what you mean (dopey me). It does feel a bit like that sometimes...

[SeanMacGabhann]

memories eh....?

I don't think it was a one-sided argument. James gives as good as he gets and if he was fighting a lone-battle... well, he picked it!

As I said I've had agressive discussions with James before - I hardly think colour comes in to it. And I've not seen anyone post sometthing along the lines of "you're not black you don't know what it's like", whereas James has posted such a comment from a gay perspective - which I don't think is either proper or helpful.

Of the black forumites/non-forumites I've met, I've been able to have some veery "healthy" discussions and not once had my colour thrown at me.

[James]

Oh I disagree there Sean. Personal experience is a precious thing and should not be brushed aside.

I had a friend at Uni (up North) who once told me about how hard it was for her to get a cab home at night. I didn't understand; I'd never had this problem. It emerged that they were driving past her because she was black.

I have lots of similar stories to tell from a gay perspective. If you're not black or gay or whatever you just wouldn't know about things like this.

[KalamityKel]

Why not?

[Keef]

Because Kel, although we may gasp and say how bad it is if we witnessed someone being called "n****r", or"f****t", we don't actually feel the sting of someone saying that to us if we are not black or gay, or indeed both.

However, I still think people can empathise. It may not have been racial or sexual slurs, but people can still be on the receiving end of some very hateful, and extreamely hurtful comments about all manner of other stuff.

[KalamityKel]

Ok I'm obviously not in the same thoughts here... and certainly dont meant to appear "ignorant" BUT while yes it is wrong/bad when others call people names no matter what names those are (and I'm certainly not suggesting this behaviour is acceptable and we should accept it) if you are happy with who/what you are and can proudly walk around with your head high then what is the problem?

Obviously I'm not referring to the real HATE crime where vandalism and violence is involved - there's no excuse, for wotever reason, for that kind of thing. I'm trying to understand why posters like James (don't get grrrr wiv me I'm just using you as an example) come across as having a chip on their shoulders.

Yes I know I will never understand what it is like to be "black" similarly as someone who is not of the same colouring or background as me will understand what it is like to live my life. I do, however, understand the damaging effect bullying has on an individual. Bullying, which to me, is the real issue here.

[Rico]

Thatcher is interesting, eh? She achieved a lot by becoming our first woman Prime Minister - long before Hillary took a chance. And she took some tough decisions - some right, but difficult. She didn't handle it in the best way, even if they were sound decisions. But she believed in what she did and many women felt betrayed because she didn't agree with their agenda (suggesting being female is a non-issue, which is right).

I recently read about a gay/lesbian journalists association in the US. It has not been allowed to join a coalition of similar associations for black, hispanic and asian journalists. They were doing the very thing they accused 'the man' of doing and not being inclusive. Truth is, once we equalise all people regardless of these traits, we'll see that ideologies cut across them and find new reasons to fight.

Perhaps that's CWALD's point. They aren't 'imidating the master' as much as they may actually share the ideology.

I'd also add that in the corporate world today, being gay, black, female, etc. is becoming a leg up instead of an obstacle. That's good. And 'the master' is becoming quite a diverse prototype.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

James - I do blame the breakdown of society on the Thatcher ideology which was taken even further by Blair.

The whole get on your bike thing broke families down to nuclear size on a massive scale as they moved away from the support of their local community and extended families.

Then the rise in consumerism as the saviour of our economy saw people addicted to consuming the very planet they live in with built in obselecence being the only way to keep profits from dropping.

People became only useful if they consumed and the ones who couldn't keep up were thrown away.

Strong cheap drugs flooded the country after the riots in the 80's and just like in America with the Black Panthers, the militancy gave way to crime to feed addictions.

We all rolled over and gave up.

I remember my Dad, who is an old Communist telling me that most people only revolt when they have no ther way out, but in the Russian revolution an almost overnight rise in conciousness of the peasants finally changed centuries of oppressive serfdom. (ok what happened after may not have been exactly unoppressive!!)

The modern elite control the media pretty much exclusively worlwide - but they can't plug all the holes.

The planet, which has pretty much been silenced during the last hundred years of rape and plunder (like the voices of the oppressed) has started to complain, and even the media barons who have a vested interest in ensuring the perpetuation of the status quo, can't drown out her voice.

In my view, the only way to get over the coming catastrophic payback, is through communities bridging the age/sex/rage/sexuality/class etc gaps, learning how to share the dwindling resources including water and re-learn from our ancestors that what you take out you must put back.

[James]

Forgive me CWALD, but you are as far from being a chav as I can imagine! I expect you will take that as an insult but I mean it as a compliment...

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I'm a class fighter - and as 'chavs' seem to be kicked about as much as asylum seekers and illegal immigrants at the momenet, had to take my place with them and fight their corner.

Plus I am a bit chavvy - I have a pitbull and used to fight a lot.

[pk]

James Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Um, actually the title of this thread is

> "homophobia compared with racism."

>

> It is not "homophobia is worse than racism." Read

> it properly!

>

>

if you read your own posts you'd remember that the opening post of the thread had the following quote :

?Schools and colleges have done much to counter racism and sexism, the same cannot be said when it comes to tackling homophobia,? he will argue.

?Despite some notable exceptions, too many educational establishments are breeding grounds for the WORST kind of casual prejudice.?

you don't think that this might lead to confusion?

so where's the comparison bit you promise in the title? and what's purpose?

[Rico]

Then Chav you really are for a massive redistribution of wealth - not really for equality based on gender, orientation, race, etc. For example, I doubt you'd have much support for the Black Gay Lawyers group - where most earn six figures or more. Or Thatcher as a woman because her values weren't your own.

I disagree with creating a socialists, state-run Government based on redistributing wealth by robbing the rich to subsidise the poor. It would end in tears. But I understand we differ.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

We need a massive redistribution of power

[Rico]

I think we've got it pretty good and as perfect as it can be. The Mugabes of this world, yes. But our system and the free press get it right more oft than not.

Your whole persona is a contradiction. You've broken out of the cycle and made it thanks to safety nets. That's what we pay for and I'm happy. Your message to fellow chavs is surely not 'rise up and claim' but 'break out, stand up, take control and make something of yourself'. Surely.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Rico, where do you get your information? From the 'Free' press?

The only major newspaper that is not owned by a huge corporation with fingers in all the big pies is the Guardian and her sister paper The Observer. Even they have to pander to populism to a certain extent in order to make a profit and appease corporate advertisers, so none of the 'Free' press are able to be impartial bearers of news.

The BBC has tried, but has been attacked by the powerful and brought to it's knees.

Please point me in the direction of this Free press you talk of.

[Rico]

We get more information from more sources than ever. This very day the Gov't is taking a beating over expenses and rightly so. And even if they don't bend, we'll have FOI to see what they spend. Scrutiny like nowhere else.

Zimbabwe, which established the very type Gov't you want, is another story. I'll take our free, if imperfect system. It's a bit lazy to say 'our farfetched views are right but we can't sway a huge majority because the press stands in our way'. No, you can't sway a huge majority - or even a sizeable minority - because your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

But we need extermists to keep us centered.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

What makes you think I want a society like Zimbabwe?

You are good at making assumptions about people because don't seem to understand what you read.

[Rico]

I think extremists on both sides are dangerous. State control of property and wealth and media never works. I'm not sure what your alternative is if not that.

[KalamityKel]

eh?

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Rico - Instead of trying to just rubbish a person's argument by calling them an extremist, try to read, analyse and counter their argument.

If you want to know what I beleive, then you should ask, not assume. I am in the Green Party.

I believe a lot of what is written in the following link and even helped formulate some of the policies, as did a lot of other ordinary members so here is a bit of light reading for you to start you off.

Click on the different topics to find out what they are about.

Let me know if there is anything you don't understand and I'll try to explain it to you, but stop calling me an extremist.

[citizenED]

In this thread and others there has been some comments about how difficult it is to empathise/sympathise with anyone of a different group. I appreciate that, as a straight white bloke, I cannot feel the direct psychological stress caused a racist/sexist/homophobic comment but in general I think it is more helpful to think in much broader terms. When a friend's father died I could not feel his immediate emotional response, but I could put my arm around him and offer a comforting shoulder to cry on. As a human being I could empathise, because our brains are able to create emotion. I have wept at many a film or book precisely because my human mind can make emotion out of a fiction. If that's the case, then it's not too big a leap for me to make a close approximation of the pain caused by a prejudiced comment.

I think this precisely because people do not fit into the easily recognised denominations; ie white, black, homosexual etc. If I end up standing in a group of people like me, as in white, straight blokes, I feel uneasy, for the very reason that they are obviously not like me. People like me would mean that I should be standing in a mixed group that would include men, women, white, black, gay, straight.

[Guest]

Citizen, you're obviously a person with intelligence, insight and enough curiosity and sympathy to use them to try to understand someone else's experience. Should be more people like you.

I suspect that, like you, most of us choose people who think/act like us over those who look/talk like us but have different values. For instance, one of the things I like about working for an investment bank (apart from the mad adrenaline rushes) is that no one really cares about the colour of your skin, your sexual preferences or who your parents are - it's results that count.

[SteveT]

Ms B wrote:one of the things I like about working for an investment bank

Does this mean you are naturally quick at figures?

Did you come top of the class in maths?

Are you a very calculating female;-)