Queermisia

It’s been a busy week and we had a lot of excellent debate (and some excellent shouting and exquisitely-crafted strawmen and towering mesas and buttes (dare I say it, Not Homophobic Buttes? Looks like I dare, fuckers) of moral high ground.

I haven’t got time to blog-post and in-depth-comments-argue, but I thought Ilya’s notes about labels – and what it means for both the Australian marriage equality fuckaroonie and the wider case of Fuck The No Voters I Don’t Care About Their Motivations vs. Now Now Let’s Be Civilised And Figure Out What’s Going On In All Their Heads And Proceed Accordingly I Know This Is Utterly Impossible To Do But I Still Decided To Use It As The Basis For My Objections, aka. Everybody vs. dreameling.

Anyway.

The point is, Ilya had a nice point about homomisia and queermisia as terms, rather than homophobic, bigot, fucksnorkel, and assorted other terms. Terms which, I want to stress, I have no intention of giving up at this point. Especially fucksnorkel. I feel like I’ve only just gotten to know fucksnorkel, mainly because I just made it up.

urban

Fuck yes I did. As soon as I’d screencapped, though, I added a definition so stay tuned and see if it passed muster.

Okay. Point is, Ilya’s comments (you can find them easily here) were interesting. And a lot of these labels are useless, but then – aren’t they all?

I mean, I’m a bit deep in this right now because I’ve been struggling to write a future history of this species which involves the collapse of a lot of categorisation systems into a world-spanning cult of the individual and seven billion one-person religions and creeds and physical alignments. No label you choose to mention will really accurately cover every person you choose to put under that label, and the people you choose to put there won’t correspond to the people someone else chooses to put there.

So it’s all rather pointless. But interesting.

Now, I may be a bit out of date with this, but my understanding of a phobia – okay, many but not necessarily all phobias – was that it was an irrational fear, yes, but one that was essentially a mental handicap, a psychological hang-up or compulsion that interferes with your operation in a given society. People get treatment for phobias.

In that respect, isn’t homophobia perfectly valid? As a handicap you should face and conquer, so you can improve as a functioning adult?

See, there are phobias and phobias. Some people are afraid of heights. That makes perfect sense to me, it’s your brain telling you that falling’s dangerous yo. Is that a phobia?

And a lot of these things are perfectly fine because you can avoid them. Does the huge and complex (and fabulous, it has to be said) umbrella of the LBGT community fall into that category? Can people who don’t approve of LBGTs simply avoid them? Is that what they’re trying to do by denying same-sex couples the right to marry? I mean, it will certainly cut down on your chances of accidentally seeing a pair of blokes nuzzling each other in the Wedding Announcements section of the paper…

Is that what it is?

Isn’t homophobia, or queermisia, or whatever else, a psychological problem that we should be trying to correct? Or is that just the LBGT-friendly version of Praying the Gay Away? Brainwashing for the politically correct secular 21st Century educated types?

I’m pretty sure some of these people have genuine psychological issues that need fixing. Others just have a mild set of opinions that aren’t compatible with voting Yes (but they still should not vote No because of that shit), and is it really our place to declare “this is what society is, you will comply”?

I’m confident that we can solve this once and for all, here on the Hatstand.

In the meantime, watch this because it says more about homomisia and No voters and basically everything I’ve been ranting about, than any number of rambling blog posts or comments.

Enjoy your Sunday. I anticipate being hung over.

This entry was posted in Hatboy's Nuggets of Crispy-Fried Wisdom and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Queermisia

  1. dreameling says:

    Great. I haven’t even had time to reply to the other thread, and you’re already at it in a new thread.

    Fuck The No Voters I Don’t Care About Their Motivations vs. Now Now Let’s Be Civilised And Figure Out What’s Going On In All Their Heads And Proceed Accordingly I Know This Is Utterly Impossible To Do But I Still Decided To Use It As The Basis For My Objections, aka. Everybody vs. dreameling

    Thanks for the lovely straw man, and by “Everybody”, I guess you mean “Chucky & Aaron”? I’ll take you two on in a threesome any day.

    • stchucky says:

      No, it’s everybody. And the strawmen are all yours.

    • aaronthepatriot says:

      For a strawman, it sure as shit sounded exactly like what you kept telling us–no, lecturing us–that we need to do instead of being bullies. Let’s look closely at the strawman before you do anything rash like continuing to consider us opponents:

      “Let’s be civilized” – definitely what you’ve been saying

      “Figure out what’s going on in all their heads” – OK, you spoke of them as individuals, didn’t say “all”, but that’s the obvious implication if we’re going to break the group down into individuals. Denial not accepted

      “I know this is impossible to do” – yeah fair enough, I never got the impression you admitted this was impossible. But you sure you want to hang your “that’s a strawman” hat on that one?

      “Decided to use it as a basis for my objections” – yup, you sure as shit did.

      • dreameling says:

        what you kept telling us–no, lecturing us–that we need to do instead

        Please point to me where I was lecturing you about what to do.

        See, here I was feeling like you were lecturing me on how to respond to the “No” voters and bigotry.

        before you do anything rash like continuing to consider us opponents

        Again, here I was feeling like you (meaning you and Chucky) considered me an opponent in this.

        More later…

      • aaronthepatriot says:

        “Please point to me where I was lecturing you about what to do.”
        I have no time to go spelunking but I’m remembering words and phrases that CLEARLY did this. I can’t believe you’re asking me to dig that up for you.

        See if Hatboy wants to. If you keep denying you did that, this is going to go downhill fast.

        “See, here I was feeling like you were lecturing me on how to respond to the “No” voters and bigotry.”

        We were only defending OUR reactions, which you were attacking repeatedly. You’re using yet another current right-wing tactic, employed over the free speech discussions right now. Criticize the left, it’s fine; left criticizes back, they’re telling the poor right-wingers what to do and say.

        Seriously man. You’ve been taking time away from the blog (probably due to being busy). How about taking time away to consider all the warning signs I’ve been pointing out? Because I’ve considered yours…and decided I have the experience and right to speak of these bigots as I have been.

        “Again, here I was feeling like you (meaning you and Chucky) considered me an opponent in this.”

        Maybe we’re all misreading each other, but remember: you took on Hatboy’s comments about Australia and these bigots first. Meaning you started the “opposition”. So whether we are all opponents now or not, someone had to initiate that process. And now, I suppose, that someone is saying “aww shucks, that’s not it at all!”

        Either try to make your case or not, but let’s stop trying to decide who is being more problematic in this discussion, please. Again it’s really tiresome.

        Hatboy I do wish you hadn’t come at dreameling so directly in this blog entry. I’d be pissed if you did that to me… XD

      • stchucky says:

        “This will probably piss you off, but I think that with that kind of rhetoric you’re just contributing to the sort of emotionally-charged black-and-white thinking that’s gonna destroy the world.”

        – dreameling, making his bed.

      • dreameling says:

        “This will probably piss you off, but I think that with that kind of rhetoric you’re just contributing to the sort of emotionally-charged black-and-white thinking that’s gonna destroy the world.”

        – dreameling, making his bed.

        That’s a fair point to make. My words read harsh and judgmental. (There’s a reason I buffered that with “piss you off”. I didn’t like writing that. Not that that’s an excuse.) I was honestly taken aback by Chucky’s angry rhetoric, and I honestly felt that the way he was (or seemed to be) easily dismissing the “No” voters as a single whole with variations of “fuck off” wasn’t reasonable or right.

        But since I wasn’t at that point totally sure how the rhetoric actually matched Chucky’s attitude — that was one of the things I wanted to find out — kicking off with that statement was unfair to him. I also don’t have his knowledge and experience of Australia, so again, that was unfair. (I’ve tried to project this by way of Finland and our politics, and what people’s attitudes are here, and I’m just assuming that those overlap a lot.)

        And I certainly did not mean to lecture. I don’t like to be lectured at, which is why I also try not to lecture. I do give my opinion, though. But I usually try to phrase it in terms of how I think things work.

        In short, that bit above was a bad move on my part, and I apologize.

      • stchucky says:

        I appreciate that, although an apology really isn’t necessary. I was called upon to provide context for my responses, and my admittedly stupid poking. There it is. I call evensies.

        Still calling you the strawmaster of this thread.

      • dreameling says:

        I have to admit that I didn’t think the “destroy the world” bit was what colored the whole discussion for you. In retrospect, sure, it reads like the sort of broad statement that could certainly do that, but you seemed to brush it off, which I was fine with it.

        I thought it was me commenting on your relationship with Australia, and maybe me generalizing the issue beyond just the Australia vote, that pissed you off.

      • stchucky says:

        Oh yeah, those were also blunders.

      • aaronthepatriot says:

        “I have to admit that I didn’t think the “destroy the world” bit was what colored the whole discussion for you.”

        Well, you didn’t write it at me[1], I think, although I found much of the thrust of your criticism of me to be in that line of thought…but I can tell you that when I read that (thinking it applied to me because of what I just wrote here), it definitely colored the debate for me. And also gave me a look at what I thought was your actual perspective.

        [1] Similarly I am not assuming the apology you made was to me but will act as if it was, no need to say more on it.

        Basically, you were telling me that my black and white response to this horrible bigotry is what’s tearing the world apart. Instead of, like, you know, the actual bigotry of these people. Which is ridiculous, isn’t it? Surely you can’t possibly mean that, but you wrote it.

        It’d be like when global warming kills 95% of us humans, and I start screaming that global warming denier idiots killed us all, you’d say I was the one wiping out the humans instead of the global warming which was worsened (out of proportion to my contribution) and enabled by the idiots I want to yell at.

        It’s quite a few stages past saying “that’s not very helpful, you know?” Which I have admitted is true.

      • stchucky says:

        Nah but seriously, I wasn’t saying that was the entire reason for my snark and ongoing poking. You just asked for a citation of how your response to this issue caused the disagreement. I still think there’s a lot of misinterpretation going on.

      • dreameling says:

        Seriously man. You’ve been taking time away from the blog (probably due to being busy). How about taking time away to consider all the warning signs I’ve been pointing out? Because I’ve considered yours…and decided I have the experience and right to speak of these bigots as I have been.

        Just because I’m not responding doesn’t mean I’m not reading or skimming the blog. So, I haven’t so much taken time away from the blog as just not having the time, focus, and energy to sit down and write proper replies. A mobile phone and 15 minutes on the bus — like now with this little aside — just doesn’t work for me. (Writing long replies to discussions like this takes hours, and it’s exhausting.)

        Although, come to think of it, I probably shouldn’t read the blog while my replies in a heated debate are pending because that’s just anxiety-inducing and does nothing for my mood. But, you know, I gotta click those notifications.

        I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the warning signs, and I assume you’re not saying that I’ve questioned your right to speak about things the way you want. But I suggest you hold off on the reply and clarifications for this until I actually get to give the proper attention and response to the gazillion comments you made since my last (proper) reply in that other thread.

        It’s not gonna be today, though. Plus I need to deal with Chucky’s replies first. (Not going to be today either.)

      • aaronthepatriot says:

        I could tell you in email what I mean by warning signs but I think I’ve said what they are…and that I’ve seen them before. I’m concerned if I make what I’m saying more clear, you will go through the roof. So I’m just trying to move you from attacking the left for tactics back to attacking the right for their actual wrong ideas. And none of this “we can do both things”…I know we can. Let’s just wisely expend our energy and limited time, eh? You’ve at least admitted the latter applies to you. I have 2 kids, I bet the former does as well.

        So I’m not interested in using my energy to attack/criticize those with the right ideas. That’s what I’m saying. And people have gotten lost in that approach and ended up on the other side of the issues. And ended up enabling the other side of the issues.

        Well I guess I was more clear, but not in the way I am still trying to avoid.

  2. ohilya says:

    I should point out: Chucky and Aaron aren’t affected by this.

    By virtue of not being a straight male, and one living in Australia, I *am*. And I’m the one who’s trying to be analytical about it. When I’m the one who has to sit here every day and feel more and more dehumanised as a person for not being heterosexual.

    Good times, good times.

    • stchucky says:

      Exactly, as I’ve said. I’m in the happy position of not being affected by this at all, except insofar as I would very much like my LBGT friends in Australia to enjoy the same rights as my cis friends. I can dust my hands, roll my eyes and forget about the whole thing.

      But this has made me pretty mad, and embarrassed, and while I’m perfectly willing to concede the fact that there are different motivations and psychologies at work here and it’s all very interesting, it’s not going to change the action all of these No voters have in common.

      And I judge people, as you atheists are so fond of saying, according to their actions, not their philosophies or ideologies or innermost demons.

    • aaronthepatriot says:

      Ugh, I’m really sorry about that, Ilya. Sounds like Hatboy didn’t criticize Oz enough before you moved there, or something!

      Also I didn’t know you weren’t a straight male. Not that I care. Not that I don’t care, either! Sheesh, this is a hard needle to thread! XD

      Take it any positive way you want, that I didn’t know that.

  3. ohilya says:

    And *the* one living in Australia.

    I really cannot edit my own work. Not an unusual thing for some writers. A fortunate thing for those who are lucky enough to be able to do so. I am not one of them.

  4. Laurence says:

    I think a part of the problem is that the word (or rather concept) of marriage conflates two things. There’s the religious side where you have whatever your religion says marriage means and then there’s the civil side where you get whatever legal rights your country offers you.

    We need two different words to separate the two, then religions can make whatever rules they like for their part and the civil version can be fully equal hopefully removing at least some of the reasons the religious people use to try to prevent that.

    We went part way to trying that in the UK at one point, I think, with the idea of “civil partnerships”, which were supposed to be all the legal side of a marriage without any religion. The problem is that people want to get “married” because that’s the big thing, so both sides want that to be their word and concept, so nobody was really satisfied.

    We need to go back in time and keep the two separate from the start!

    The next question to boil your noodles over is what should happen when people start to want >2 person marriages and how do you work it out?

    • aaronthepatriot says:

      I do agree with one of the major sources of this issue, to be sure.

      “The next question to boil your noodles over is what should happen when people start to want >2 person marriages and how do you work it out?”

      Right-wingers are WAY ahead of you over here in the US. They go there, and then they go to bestiality, every time this debate is held over marriage equality.

      As far as being considered a spouse (wife, husband, whatever), I don’t see why we should limit consenting adults. Now, as to what sorts of benefits (taxes, paternity leave, etc.) the government gives to a 3, 4, 5, more person married…gaggle?…I think that has to be chosen to avoid taking advantage of the system. I say no additional or duplicative benefits. For example, if you have 5 guys married to one lucky woman, only ONE of them can get paternity leave per child. Otherwise, what a scam! LOL

      And I’m just brushing the surface, mostly to state my acceptance of the idea in general.

      • Laurence says:

        I guess as a non-fucksnorkel (or at least I like to think I am), I mostly go by the “consenting adults” rule, which I would state as “if people want to do something and everyone affected is a consenting adult, then they should be allowed to”. Of course, real life isn’t that simple – it’s hard to track down exactly who is affected by something, but it’s a good starting point!

        So, that neatly covers allowing straight marriage, gay marriage and poly marriage, but drawing a line before paedo marriage or beastimarriage.

        I did find Heinlein’s descriptions of line marriages and other group things in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress interesting, although it was hard enough finding one person who can put up with me…

  5. ohilya says:

    When queers promote free love and orgies, Conservatives vilify us and say “No”. When queers promote marriage and monogamy, Conservatives vilify us and say “No”. Nothing pleases them. I’m starting to think they’re just bothered we exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s