"When witches were burned in the middle ages,
the Inquisitors ordered the good burghers
(all of them men, of course)
to scour the jungles for jailed queers
drag them out and tie them together in bundles,
mix them in with bundles of wood
at the feet of the women,
and set them on fire
to kindle a flame
foul enough for a witch to burn in
The sticks of wood in bundles like that
were called faggots
and that’s what they called the queers; too,
and call us still,
meaning our extinction, our complete
anthrocide and gynocide their one response to
any heretical blasphemy against
a god-given manliness"
These gave me some warm fuzzies… (In relation to the Douglas Robinson post earlier)
Some of the comments from the gay dalek picture. Gives you some hope. I’ve seen it a lot, gays being awful to other gays for how ‘masculine” or ‘normal’ they appear. I will completely admit that I used to be one of those people. Thankfully, I’ve grown as a person. I think being queer gives us a certain amount of freedom to fuck with preconceived gender norms and biases. Why reinforce them? Why continue to attack each other for not fitting in with those scripts?
I’m not completely certain what your point is, but it sounds like you are being critical of gay people who attack “masculine” acting men for being too “normal”. If that’s what you are saying then I agree with you: I think the time has come where none of us attack other queers on the basis of their gender expression. But I disagree with the idea that there is a lot of anti-masc sentiment in the community. My blog is obviously all about exposing the sheer volume of anti-fem language perpetrated by self-identified “masculine” gays. I think the hate is definitely skewed against effeminate men.
Theater(doesn’t make me fem!)
Ugh. No, theatre doesn’t make a person fem. But saying it “doesn’t make me fem” in this manner DOES make you kinda homophobic. For fuck’s sake people WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. Seriously, why have some many gay men caught this same, insidious, brain-killing disease?
"Norton remembers seeing a programme where young gay men in Brighton criticised him for not being a very good role model. “Bless these boys, they were so camp and it broke my heart because I kind of thought, ‘I was you’. And in a way it’s about self-loathing, the dislike of campness. Because actually the people who dislike it are normally quite camp. And it’s sad that every gay personal ad is all ‘straight-acting’. That’s a weird thing for a sexuality to be based on. Something else.”"
From Sydney Mardi Gras. The comments on the facebook page this was first posted on are a textbook study in camp-phobic “allies” and community members. And this isn’t even the placard-carrier at his most femme or his most camp. Sigh.
I would love to see the facebook page. Did anyone take screenshots or have a link to it? Time for the gay community, and in particular all the so-called “masc” fags, to grow up. Permanently stuck in high school, bagging out campness out of fear that if you don’t, you’ll be labelled a sissy too, is getting real old, real tired, real fast.
PS: I love how he has the word TOP written on his chest. That’s really honing in on the issue here - so much of the camp/femmephobia these “masc” bastards come out with is rooted (pun completely intended) in the fact that they are having a hard time reconciling societal norms surrounding penetration and the fact that they, as males, like to be fucked like no-one’s business. In other words, the “masc” fools are so unconsciously homophobic because they are ashamed of being confirmed, accept-jesus-as-your-lord-and-saviour BOTTOMS FOR CHRIST. You know I’m right, too, so don’t even think of arguing. And also, just adding the term “vers” after bottom (as in “I’m btm/vers”) ain’t fooling anyone sweety. The femme guys seem to have a larger proportion (pun completely intended) of tops than the masc guys ever will (which isn’t that hard - pun totally intended - since there’s only, like, one single top in the whole “masc” universe).
PPS: and this is what he wrote on the facebook thread where he copped so much criticism from anti-gay faggots who are really pissing me off more than usual lately. This guy is 100% CLASS:
Douglas J Robinson So I’m the guy in this photo.
I certainly hope I’m not embarrassing or obnoxious or clown like. But it was just the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, so I was dressed up a little more than normal.
I’m a float organizer for the parade and my group Capital Queers was marching in support of the LGBTI athletes of the Sochi Olympics.
I just saw the daleks from another group and thought it would be fun. Genuinely no idea who submitted the photo here.
And yes. Top vers. Despite being not 100% masculine. - I don’t think if you support people being themselves you don’t support equal rights at all.
I’m also have a federal government day job and work on my local governments LGBTI advisory council - so you know. Not just a hot unicorn mess the other 364 days a year and genuinely working for positive change.
If there’s anything I missed covering from you lovely bunch let me know. I’d be happy to respond!
Great to see so many people on there pointing out that the homophobia from within the community really is the problem. Read the comments, they gave me some hope.
By Tim Soutphommsane (source: The Age, Melbourne, 3/3/14)
Don’t assume good speech can overcome bad speech – that is naive optimism.
There has been much public debate about the Racial Discrimination Act’s provisions concerning racial hatred – but too much heat and not enough light.
Unfortunately, there is considerable misunderstanding of how federal racial vilification laws operate. And there is alarming confusion about the concept of freedom, a concept at risk of being debased by ideological polemic and uninformed sloganeering.
Freedom is ultimately something that has value because it can be exercised . But when racial vilification occurs, it inflicts injury on how people enjoy their freedom. Over the decades, a significant body of research has established the serious physical and psychological damage that racist harassment can cause.
A few years ago, the Australian Human Rights Commission commissioned a survey of Australians’ perceptions and experiences of racism. Many respondents reflected on not only how sad and angry the experience of racism made them feel but on how it made them less free to express their opinions. One respondent , a man from China in his late 30s, said: ‘‘ I came to Australia for freedom. However, racism makes me feel my liberty is incomplete.’’
Racism can, in other words, have the effect of silencing its targets. This is one reason we can’t leave the task of combating racial intolerance to the marketplace of ideas alone – why we can’t assume that good speech can overcome bad speech.
Such thinking is naive optimism. It is easy to prescribe that more speech is the answer, and the only answer, if one were an articulate professional or someone accustomed to enjoying the privilege of social power.
But the marketplace of ideas isn’t an arena of perfect competition. As the testimony of those who experience racism demonstrates, we can’t expect the speech of the weak to counter the speech of the strong. Indeed, the introduction of racial vilification laws was a direct response to community concern about racist violence against migrants and systemic racism against Aboriginal Australians.
The law is recognition that violence and injustice breed in environments where vilification flourishes . Recent incidents show how vilification can quickly escalate to violence.
Like its historical background, the manner in which the law operates isn’t well understood. Section 18C makes an act unlawful if it is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone on the basis of their race.
Contrary to suggestions about being ‘‘ prosecuted’ ’ or being ‘‘ convicted’ ’ under the law, Section 18C is a civil provision. Where there is an alleged breach of the law, the Australian Human Rights Commission attempts to conciliate the matter between parties.
Last financial year, of the 192 complaints concerning racial hatred lodged with the commission, only five (3 per cent) ended up in court. The majority of cases are resolved through conciliation.
The section isn’t about protecting hurt feelings. An act is only unlawful if it is objectively demonstrated that it is reasonably likely to cause ‘‘ profound and serious effects’’ , as opposed to ‘‘ mere slights’’ .
Section 18C is also balanced by Section 18D, which provides broad free speech exemptions for anything that is artistic expression, scientific debate or fair comment or reporting of a matter of public interest. In such cases, it isn’t enough for a complainant to say they were offended and insulted, even on the basis of race.
It is strange that so much attention is being paid to a law that offers modest, though important, protection for individuals against racial vilification . After all, we have many laws and instruments that restrict the use of offensive language.
There are offensive language provisions in criminal summary offences legislation in NSW, Queensland , Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. There are comprehensive defamation laws that can result in the award of six-figure damages for offensive language. The House of Representatives , the Senate and each of the state parliaments have standing orders that prohibit members from using offensive language.
If, as a society, we can accept that our parliamentarians should have to withdraw their use of offensive words and that our laws can result in six-figure damages and criminal sanctions for the infliction of even trivial offence, why should we not protect people from the significant harms of racial vilification ?
Let me be clear about where I stand. The current law has worked as it was intended to work. It provides a civil and educative remedy for racial discrimination. It protects Australians from the pernicious harms of racial abuse and harassment. It is one of the few pieces of legislation in this country that explicitly recognises the value of free speech.
If there is to be amendment of the existing law, there must be a compelling case for change. The danger of dismantling Section 18C is that it may license racial hatred. It may encourage people to think there is no harm in dealing out racial vilification . It may condone hate speech that diminishes the freedom of others. It may unleash a darker, even violent, side of our humanity, which revels in the humiliation of the vulnerable
Gay/Bi Guy (online) : I’m only into straight acting masc guys.Are you straight acting?
polomuncher asked: What does he mean by Flick?
He means “give them the flick”, as in “get rid of them” / “ignore them”.
e.g. “I don’t like people who wear sunglasses, I give them the flick.”
Although, interestingly, I think flik means “faggot” in Dutch? Don’t quote me on that though.
Seriously, this epidemic of homophobic faggots is getting REAL tedious, REAL quick. Conversation after conversation ends the same way. So sick of arseholes, who hate on other gays FOR BEING GAY, in exactly the same way heterosexual arseholes hate on gays FOR BEING GAY, arguing that they are out and proud. They might be out, but they aren’t proud at all. They’re just gutter trash.
NOTE: this guy called effeminate men “femme cunts” earlier in the conversation. I was trying to get my point across to him by using his language and quoting him when I used that phrase. Just so you have some context there.
I am constantly astounded by the sheer blindness and ignorance of gay men. For years I’ve found myself struggling to understand both the projected self-hatred of the “Gays Suck” Masc4Masc Normals, and the zealous “If You Don’t Agree With Us You’re A Homophobe” Equality Evangelists. It wasn’t until recently I started to form the view that these two seemingly very different types of Gay are indeed very closely related, perhaps even two sides of the same coin, with one producing the other via an overarching discourse of Equality/Sameness.
It’s no secret that the Equality movement and the money that’s been thrown behind it is funded by (mostly) white middle class gays and their heterosexual supporters. It’s also no secret that this particular group is the most pissed about being excluded from the privileges most white heterosexual people have constant access to, even though they are usually blissfully unaware that these privileges even exist. The universalised rhetoric of “humanness” that accompanies such invisible hetero whiteness, and the ability to be seen as human rather than a subject of a race, sexuality, or gender, is something the white middle class gays envy, and they are mightily pissed at their dispossession.
As such, this push that has been labelled Equality, but which I call Equality/Sameness, is strangely fronted by images of heteronormality; images of wholesome familial Hallmarky goodness that are almost exclusively white and emphasise Sameness above all things, instead of the one thing that would truly foster acceptance of all humans: a respect for difference. It makes me wonder just how much respect these Equality Evangelists will give other groups once they have been securely included into the Club of Normality. If “acceptance” is conditional upon how easily one can assimilate into the normality of the mainstream, then diversity in any form will remain excluded from normality’s embrace. It seems Equality Evangelists everywhere have misnamed themselves: they are Assimilation Ministers, having designated themselves High Priests in charge of ensuring non-heterosexuals everywhere either get with the normality program, or STFD, STFU, and GTFO.
The question that seems to have been forgotten, or just plain ignored altogether, is why our communities of non-heterosexuals are allowing themselves to be bullied into supporting a movement that, in all practical senses, is hell-bent on joining and strengthening heteronormative institutions such as marriage, instead of manifesting our own unique cultural structures that better reflect our diversity and needs. For some reason, these Ministers of Assimilation seem to think we queers need to change ourselves in order to be accepted by a heteronormalised society that thinks our diversity is ridiculous/disgusting/offensive. What seems lost on these Equality Evangelists is that we should be demanding respect and acceptance regardless of how we choose to live or express our diversity.
Sure, marriage laws are discriminatory, but why so much focus on having been excluded by homophobes, instead of being focused on why we think we should belong to their oppressive structures in the first place? Furthermore, even if I were to accept gay marriage as a thing worthwhile, why has something that will never actually address or remedy the source of homophobia (which is heteronormativity) taken up so much time, energy and resources? Address the core of the discrimination, and the discrimination will die. Pull the weed out from the root, yaknow? Equality Evangelists claim marriage equality to be homophobia’s silver bullet, when in fact discriminatory marriage laws are only a minor skin irritation when compared to the Stage IV cancer heteronormativity represents. We should be in the schools, fighting heteronormativity and invisible heterosexuality where it is at its strongest, not marching in the streets with silly banners like “No Freedom Till We’re Equal” and “Love is Love”. Despite this, we all know marriage equality, at least in the Western hemisphere, is only a matter of time in most places. But when the claim that homophobia will die once this one tiny step for faggot-kind is taken is exposed as the fallacy it truly is, what then? Can we please then get on with the actual job of liberation? Pretty please???? I suspect it will become very difficult to achieve actual liberation after gay marriage becomes law because homophobes will be able to shoot down any further campaign by saying “you got what you wanted, so stop thinking of new complaints”. Further, the middle class gays will have what they want, so they won’t be throwing any more money into helping the rest of the queers achieve liberation, and why would they considering they despise all us non-normals anyway?
Regardless, this repeated image of mostly white Sameness is being presented as an image of universalised gay normality, and is being used to show our heterosexual enemies that we are not a threat because in all aspects of our lives we are Same: the “if you scratch us, do us (white) faggots not bleed” line of reasoning. Along with this image is the mantra that goes along the “Born This Way” track. Apparently we can’t help being born homosexual. There’s arguments going both ways: is it natural? is it innate? is it a choice? I think there’s strong evidence that it’s both nature AND nurture. I also think there’s a lot of evidence that our sexualities (all of them, not just the gay ones) are significantly produced by our culture. Equality Evangelists get very angry at this concept. They argue that christian bigots the world over use the position that non-heterosexuality is a matter of “nuture” to justify gay conversion therapies. They attack anyone who would suggest that non-heterosexuality isn’t 100% nature, and claim such people to be offensive and a betrayal to their cause. They say people who disagree with them on this might as well vote conservative and join the God Hates Fags Church of Insanity.
What strikes me here is the unwillingness these High Priests of Assimilation have to discover and understand the different theories that have been produced in the last 20-30 years surrounding sexuality. Just like their christian enemies, the Equality Evangelists are deliberately blind to any piece of information, evidence, or suggestion that there are differing viewpoints, particularly from within the non-heterosexual community. Just look at the public flaying of Cynthia Nixon, when she dared suggest that she chose to be homosexual. She was immediately bullied into offering an apology to the LGBT for such heresy. And yet here was a woman who claimed she chose her sexuality. What no one in the mainstream LGBT chose to consider, was that freedom of choice is part-and-parcel of the so-called “freedom” they think we will have when we are “equal”. What the LGBT Equality Evangelists ignore in their arguments, is that it shouldn’t matter if we are born gay, or choose to be gay: what should matter is that our identities, whether we believe they are natural or choice, should be respected no matter what. Not because we were born this way, even though we might be, but because we ARE this way, here, now, and goddammit we should be respected and accepted for it!
So, based on this reasoning, I think the Equality Evangelicals, with their zealous demand to control all LGBT discourse, have some fatal flaws in their logic, and are deserving of being challenged. At the core I think their logic shows a disregard of actual equality, because they aren’t prepared to show pride in the massive amount of diversity our communities contain. They are also showing that their brand of equality disregards freedom of choice to be what one wants to be. They are not willing to allow you or I to choose to be who we want. They demand we acquiesce to their uneducated/unproven view that we are all born homosexuals, and if we do not agree, we are treated with the same contempt and loathing they treat their other political enemies. And this presentation of sameness, designed to quell the fears of our enemies, has a dark side, called Masc4Masc.
If Equality/Sameness and it’s rhetoric of Normality is the sun, then Masc4Masc, Straight-acting, No Femme Gaybros and it’s anti-gay accompaniments are the shadow it casts. This is obvious to everyone except the Masc4Mascers and the Equality Evangelists.
Masc4Mascers are also very fond of the word “normal”. They are always just “normal dudes” looking for other “normal dudes”. In this context, normal always means the same thing: (mostly) white, middle class, heteromasculine performing (or so they claim/wish) males. Orbiting this “normal” dude are the accoutrement of stereotypical masculinity: an interest in sports (particularly football), cars, lifting weights, etc. But this normality is not just defined by these manly-male things, it is defined by the things it is not, also. Things like empathy, emotionality, softness, intelligence, contemplation - anything that could be construed by a “normal” heterosexual society as constituting effeminacy in a male.
The Equality Evangelists preach from on high about normality, and their shadows, those half-closeted, insecure masc4masc males (worried the world thinks they “act gay”), are shouting about it from below. Both exhibit obvious signs of homophobia by whom they exclude from their vision of righteousness. The queer, the femme, the radical, the liberationist gay - he is unwanted on both ends of this spectrum. And yet these queers are the reason both have a platform from which to be so confident in their oppressive views, since it was the queer that first flew the liberationist flag and shouted “Fuck you, Hetero!”
Masc4mascers will claim, every single time, that they are not homophobic. That’s because they are usually too ignorantly uneducated to understand why. They will exclaim: “how can I be homophobic, you fool, I’m gay!” And yet their language tells us the homophobic truth. They will say “I’m not homophobic, I am proud to be gay, I just don’t like those effeminate gays, they give us all a bad name, I’m embarrassed by them, I’m disgusted by them, I can’t stand to be around them, I hate them.” Equality Evangelists will say, “How can I be homophobic, you fool, I’m a gay rights advocate!” And yet their language will belie the homophobic truth also, when they say “I am not homophobic, I just think that those effeminate type queers are presenting a bad image and doing damage to the cause. We need to keep showing the hetero world that we aren’t a threat to them otherwise we will never be accepted.”
If you go to any old news forum, you will see heterosexual homophobes saying the very same words: “I don’t mind gay people, they don’t bother me at all, but I can’t stand the sissy, girly faggy types. They are so annoying and they are just acting like that for attention. Why can’t they just BE THEMSELVES and act like REAL MEN.” For a society that seems to love to reinforce the lie that gender is natural, that “he’s just naturally masculine” and “she’s just naturally feminine”, they sure do love telling people they don’t like to change the way they “act”. Last time I checked, acting is the opposite of “just being yourself”. Again, why does acceptance have to be conditional upon whether or not a person’s performance of their own lives and bodies fits into a social acceptable form or model? If we are human, and if humanity is diverse, then why isn’t this diversity celebrated and respected instead of people being bullied into acting the same as the next “normal”.
So why should I care? Shouldn’t I just let people be free to do what they want? If they want to assimilate into mainstream society, who am I to judge? As long as they’re not hurting anyone, then it shouldn’t matter to me, right? I agree. As long as they’re not hurting anyone. The problem is that both the Equality Evangelists and the Masc4Mascers ARE hurting people. They are creating a hostile environment for aspects of the non-heterosexual communities that THEY think are undesirable, are not normal. This is absolutely hurting people. If you cannot present your desires without highlighting what you find disgusting, then you are positioning yourself in a way that causes damage to that which you dislike. The effects of the Equality rhetoric are very clear, and they can be seen in every femme-hating masculine faggot online. And these femme-hating gays are simply regurgitating the same language homophobic heterosexuals have always used. Except they hide behind the officially sanctioned and acceptable shield of Normality to avoid challenge and criticism. I think it’s time we all start to think about ways we can alter the discourse, so that all of us get a slice of the respect pie, no matter what we look like, think like, act like, or choose to be.