In light of the recent discovery of boy-on-boy action in Bully, this week’s Joystiq column, “That’s So Gay,” is dedicated to the two big homos of the video game community: that’s right, our old pals homophobic and homoerotic–a.k.a. reason #37 to thank Chris Grant for turning off my comments.
 |
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
If you’ve ever played online with a bunch of dudes, say something like Halo 2, you can feel the homophobic and misogynistic overtones of gamer culture as palbably as a rocket right to the face (hmmm, wait a minute). If anything, game creators should be actively trying to tear down these juvenille barriers in order to expand the market, rather than reinforce them as many games do. Thats why I think Bully’s gay possibilities are a step in the right direction, even if the social dynamics themselves are actually kind of shallow (that goes for male to female interaction in the game as well).
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:52 am
I just wanted to let you know, that this colomn was one of the best things I’ve ever read on Joystiq. I only read joystiq to keep up with current events, and read elsewhere onthe situation for a more open minded approach on things. But now that you’re writing for them I have something to look forward to. It was an excellent read, and keep up the great work.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Your last phrase is the one that really makes your article perfect. It is somehing that is well-known, but sometimes forgotten.
Excellent work (…leaves PC to finish Psychonauts…)
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Before I get started here, I want you to understand this: I *DO* have homosexual friends, and I don’t approve of behavior that is anti-gay or discriminatory. If someone wants to live a certain way and it doesn’t harm anyone else, then they should be allowed to do so.
I do, however, have a problem with people like you who try to make homosexuality somehow part of everyone’s life. By doing so, you are infringing on MY rights. It’s going too far. I don’t read blogs like joystiq for social commentary. I read them to find out about GAMES. Yes, you mentioned Rockstar’s latest opus of mindless drivel in your post, but I cannot help feeling you only included it to give your article a semblance of relevancy.
The real issue is that you have a problem with people using the word ‘gay’ as a derogatory statement.
Deal with it.
Language evolves based on certain criteria. For instance, ‘gay’ has taken on this usage simply because the homosexual lifestyle is considered an abberation. It is just a word. It’s more or less the same as trying to tell schoolchildren not to play ‘cooties’ or ‘AIDS’ games. Yes, it is childish and mean-spirited, but it doesn’t mean anything to them, and calling something ‘gay’ doesn’t mean anything to most people that use that term today.
In fact, your entire rant will just make most people who see it go out of their way to use the term more often. Most people who DO use that term fall into two categories– those who grew up hearing it used to replace stupid, boring, girly, silly, retarded, etc. and those who use it specifically as a derogatory statement aimed at homosexuals.
Either way, they are people who probably do *not* think like you and therefore will continue their activities unabated, or, in my case, increase their usage of said term in their trash talk to rub it in your face. That’s what trash talk is for, after all.
As for your theory that all males find certain activities sexually stimulating, you’re dead wrong. I *AM* 100% heterosexual and I see nothing remotely ’sexy’ about a group of guys doing anything, even if it is meant to be ’sexy’. Like the vast majority of heterosexuals(men and women alike) I do not identify with the sexual behavior of bi- or homosexuals of any gender. I can accept that it is a personal choice, but I do not understand it, nor do I have any interest in doing so.
I also take great offense that you, as a female, have the audacity to claim you have any idea how the male psyche works. You don’t. You never will. Deal with it. I don’t claim to understand the female mind; I used to think I did, but I learned early on in my five years of blissful marriage that it is best to accept and embrace the mysteries of the female mind, and not to try to paint her in a box. You would be wise to take the same approach to men.
*PLEASE* stop pushing this kind of all-inclusive crap down the collective throats of the gamer community. It is counterproductive and inflammatory, as well as causing good, red-blooded males like myself to sink to your level and waste time ranting about something they cannot control, instead of doing something productive, like mowing the lawn.
By the way, kudos at having your comments on Joystiq turned off. Avoiding criticism is *definitely* the best way to insure your editorial…. talent…. improves. Next time you decide to spew your filth all over Joystiq’s front page, have the guts to invite public comment. At least then you’ll get a *REAL* idea about how useful your commentary is.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
That post was so gay.
Just kidding.
Good job heterosexual male, you got me into rant mode here, but before I get into rant mode, there are a few things I’d like to say.
I’m a bisexual male, and I thought your post was wonderful on Joystiq. I assume that someone said something juvenile that warranted the comments to be turned off, but I only saw an empty comments page. I don’t think it should be surprising in the least that someone like Jack Thompson brings up the “gay sex (buttsechsomgwtf)” in bully as one of the reasons to bring the rating up to M, but with the exception of a previous comment, I agree that the response from the gaming community has been that of a fairly silent acceptance. Which to me is awesome. I don’t really care about why rockstar did it, the fact that they did was great to me. The only way I can get some guy action in video games is if I play as a girl.
Now, in response to the genius of an angry heterosexual male, I am now entering rant mode.
Yikes, where to even start…
I think you’re really making a big deal out of something that really doesn’t need to be a big deal. I think what she had to say was very respectful, not preachy in the least, well thought out and intelligent. What part of that layout is offensive to you? You simultaneously say “I have no problem with gay people”, and “you are trying to make it a part of people’s every day lives”?? I’m sorry but like it or not, we *are* a part of people’s every day lives. Deal with it.
And calling things “gay” (by the way, I don’t think she was even upset with the word usage, I think you simply invented this little argument, which by the way is called a strawman) is fundamentally different than saying something has cooties, and I don’t know what playground you grew up on, but when I grew up, nobody in my neighborhood played “AIDs games”. Cooties aren’t real. Gay people are. Can you see the disconnect? Can you see how calling someone “gay” might be slightly more detrimental than saying to someone that they have “cooties”? You have no idea how much that phrase annoys me, and being half gay, I think I have a right to be pissed about that. Some people just don’t like using the word in a derogitory way. Deal with it.
And the last thing since this post is long enough, being gay is not a choice. Being gay is who you are. Maybe that’s why you have such a hard time understanding gay people, because you’re not. People don’t simply wake up one morning and say “hmm, I think I like the cock”, it’s something that haunts them all their lives as they try to lead a normal, straight life. And I’m sorry, *who* exactly is infringing upon your rights?? Do you have to worry about being beaten and raped in an alleyway? Do you have to worry about coming out to your parents in the fear of being disowned? Do you worry about what your normal straight friends will say when you one day come out to them? I live in a pretty liberal town, we have gay pride parades every year, and yes sir, I too have gay friends who came out in high school, and they went through absolute hell coming out. So don’t you dare preach to me about your rights as a heterosexual when you have no god damn idea what it’s like being gay.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
@ Irritated Het: Oh, so the use of the word “gay” as a negative is okay because it’s just the evolution of language? Cool. So nobody will object when I start using “Jew” to mean a miserly or corrupt individual? Because it’s just words, right? Not like they mean anything.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
You kiss guys? Yuck.
Seriously, though, AIH is right about one thing: I am sick to fucking death of people using the term “homophobia” to describe anyone more socially conservative or less accepting of homosexuals than Harvey Fierstein.
“Homophobia” is a clinical psychological term for a very specific thing: the condition in which you feel driven to hate (and mistreat) homosexuals and those suspected of being homosexuals in order to quell your doubts about your own sexuality.
To use it as a catch-all label to describe any personal or societal dislike or disapproval of homosexual preferences or activities is tantamount to accusing those who look badly upon homosexuality as being mentally ill - which is exactly the kind of closed-mindedness you are taking them to task for.
It’s just another version of the old “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is crazy” line.
Also, the notion that women cannot ‘get’ men or vice-versa is nonsense. We will never have each other’s first-hand perspective, obviously, but that doesn’t mean we are left staring at one another across some unbridgeable divide. There’s always that whole, you know, common humanity thing.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
@ Irritated Het: Oh, so the use of the word "gay" as a negative is okay because it's just the evolution of language? Cool. So nobody will object when I start using "Jew" to mean a miserly or corrupt individual? Because it's just words, right? Not like they mean anything.
But Scott, where does that stop? Can we speak of people being “gyped?” Can police cars still be “paddywagons?” How about someone “welshing” on a bet? Frankly, you’ve got a Chinaman’s chance of going through an average day without saying something that would offend somebody.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Ok, less rantage, more direct response.
You’re right, Mischa. It shouldn’t be a big deal, and it isn’t, by itself. It’s the general attitude of the homosexual minority demanding attention that is disproportional to its social importance. If this only came up in relevant media outlets, I would be fine with it. Unfortunately, it is no longer constrained to CNN, Time magazine and the occasional issue of People.
I’m not defending my attitude. I’m probably a little bit more irritated than I should be. If somebody had told me I would be writing a blog comment like this yesterday, I would probably have been appalled. Today, I’m not; seeing this article on Joystiq pissed me off in ways I haven’t experienced in years.
I, like many people, play games to ESCAPE from reality. I read Joystiq in order to perpetuate that blissful escape mechanism. I imagine many, many gamers are playing games for the same reason. This kind of article forces reality in all of its ugly definition right back in our faces.
I also agree that my arguments are outwardly weak, and unsupportable. That doesn’t really matter though. You aren’t fighting logic here, people. You are fighting unbridled emotion, pure unadulturated ego, fueled by a moblike environment. Take part in any teamspeaked WoW raid and you should instantly understand what I am talking about. Logic is irrelevant. Human decency is also largely irrelevant. That is not why people are playing these games.
(On a side note, I grew up in late-eighties Austin, TX, in the very poor part of town that is mostly Hispanic and African american. AIDS was something very real to these kids’ parents, and as horrifying as it is to us as adults in 2006, it wasn’t real or horrifying to 8-year old kids. They treated it like it was cooties, or germs, or something similar.)
I didn’t say that being gay isn’t real. I said that it isn’t real *to the people who use the term in the fashion described.* Just like AIDS wasn’t real to the kids in that schoolyard.
Unlike AIDS, however, homosexuality will probably never be real or perceived as such to anyone who is not gay. It just isn’t a concept most heterosexual people are able to come to terms with.
I’m not saying this is right. It just *IS*.
The true point to my rant above, which admittedly was botched in delivery, is that mainstreaming acceptance is not something that is going to work in the gaming community. The very act of trying is inherently flawed and will only push people like me, who don’t understand you and can’t understand you and probably will NEVER understand you, to react in an angry and counter-productive manner.
I also find it very unfortunate, Mischa, that you and your friends had such a hard time growing up. As you put it, I have no idea what it is like being gay. Neither do most of the people that read the original article on Joystiq. My point is an article like that is not going to promote positive dialogue; It is just going to piss more people off and make things worse.
Jon:
I don’t think it is ‘okay’ to use terms like gay as an epithet. Unfortunately, because that is what it is used for in generation-x slang, it isn’t going to go away, just like the use of ‘Jew’ or ‘bitch’ have been perverted from their original intent. It is too late; the world is a dirty place and it is going to stay that way.
I apologize if I am bursting your idealistic dream-world bubble, but that is the way your garden-variety heterosexual male thinks. It’s not just me either; believe it or not, this kind of thing actually gets talked about among straight men. From what I’ve witnessed, the reaction is usually far worse than an unpleasant rant in a sexually-themed webpage.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I heard about a study done on a college campus in a documentary I watched some time ago. I believe 100 male students were selected (or volunteered perhaps, I don’t remember all the details), and divided into two groups. Unbeknownst to the participants, the groups were divided into homophobic and non-homophobic. The students sat in a chair, their penis was hooked up to sensors that would detect… growth, and they were shown gay pornography. Can you guess the results? The non-homophobic students said the pornography did not turn them on, and the data supported this claim. The homophobic group claimed the same, even more vehemently, but the data was contradictory to their report. Homophobia, to put it bluntly, is the male’s self image attempting to convince itself, and everyone else, that he’s not homosexual, when really, he’s just lying to itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality (I’m not sure of the study referenced in this article was the same I was referring to, but it’s possible)
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
At least ESPN was quick to take action on this issue:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/10/31/espn.commentator.ap/index.html
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Actually, you typoed a bit.
“That’s so gay” means that it contains homosexual content or undertones.
“That’s so ghey” means it is stupid, unwanted, etc.
They’re homonyms, but don’t lump them together and become a homonymophobe!
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Hooray! This hasn’t degenerated into a flamewar despite my tangental and emotionally loaded response.
Anyways…
It’s true gay, transgendered, and bisexual people are a minority in society, but I think it’s unfair and slightly mean spirited to say that even though we’re a minority, our needs are “disproportionate” to that of the real world. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to want to be accepted in society as normal, healthy human beings that are just wired differently than the majority. You could say the same thing about black people, or jews, or any other oppressed minority in this country, however it’s easier to write us off because if you’re black, you don’t have a closet to hide in. But you are right, there are a lot of people who just won’t listen to logic, and are simply feeding off of their emotions, however, that doesn’t make it right.
Brain, I like what you said in your comment with the exception of the line “I am sick to fucking death of people using the term "homophobia" to describe anyone more socially conservative or less accepting of homosexuals than Harvey Fierstein.” I agree with you that I think there are a lot of gay people in this country who think that being gay is better than being straight, and that any man who hasn’t had an object stuck up their rectum is a homophobe, which I think is ludicrous, however I don’t think it’s okay to simply be “less accepting of homosexuals”. I don’t think it’s too much to say that we don’t want to be looked at as being not accepted in society, which is the first step in dehumanizing a person and therefore, harrassing or using violence against them. Maybe that makes me a fringe lunatic fundamentalist, but quite frankly, I don’t care, it’s just right damnit. Sure the world might not be there yet, but that doesn’t mean that’s okay. I’m not a cultural relativist. Some people are born differently than others, some people are black, some people are brown, some people like boys, some people like girls, some people like green eggs and ham. The point is, we’re born the way we are, and it’s not a choice. I find it unacceptable that some people can’t accept gays can be healthy normal human beings (I know, I’m a hypocrite, sue me), which isn’t to say that I think straight people should constantly be apologizing for being straight, or “try it to see if they like it”, I just think people need to be more open minded is all.
And like you said (less) angry heterosexual, a lot of people just aren’t open minded. Well I’d like to see that changed, and I think bringing this up in bully is a good, albeit modest, step in that direction. Any little bit helps.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
@Irr.Het.: I apologize for infringing on your rights by being gay finding the derogatory use of that word offensive.
It’s a good thing you, as an oppressed heterosexual male, have the courage to speak up about the grave injustices done to you by the Pink Mafia.
After all, anyone who “spews filth” about inclusiveness and tolerant behavior is obviously shoving their gay agenda down your throat.
Because you have no problem lumping all gay people into one single group, I hope you won’t mind that I apologize for our collective behavior on behalf of us all. Hold strong! Don’t let the gay people keep you down, my straight brother!
You are correct - it is our fault people use the term “gay” as an insult. And why shouldn’t they? Like you so bravely pointed out, it’s just language. We should be happy with that, rather than going around insulting straight people like you by saying it’s offensive behavior.
After all, it could be worse. Gay people could be the target of hate crimes or beaten for going on a date with their boy/girlfriend, or… uh… oh yeah. Anyways, keep up the fight for straight rights! Don’t let the gays shove their agenda into your manly heterosexual cornhole!
By the way, do you start talking about black people by mentioning how many of them are your friends? That’s a good move - it shows how tolerant you are and makes anybody who says anything mean about you a complete dick. Playing the victim is an art form you’ve obviously mastered. Good for you!
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Well, I don’t say anything either way about what “gay people” think of me because “gay people” are not some kind of hive-mind. I mean, how gay is that?
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:53 pm
It’s always fun to get gamers mad ;).
Here’s something I totally forgot to mention, but which proves the point even more: Check it!
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
This paper uses data taken from chat logs within a first person shooter game, Quake Online, in order to explore the performance of gender online.
Your college tuition dollars at work, folks.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Dude, that’s totally cool. I mean, the paper’s stiff and often stereotyping, but the idea… oh yeah.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:59 am
What is it with females and this whole “gender performance” stuff? Almost all of the most fervert expositors and adherents of this ideology are from the distaff side. Methinks something is afoot.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Hey Bonnie, that was a really interesting paper. Its interesting how the psychological terms (and subsequently, marketing terms) of play are axiomatic to the nature of the game. Heh, maybe thats a bit obvious, but when you have a game about dodging rockets you can expect the social meta-content to consist of, well, talk of dodging rockets.
I liked the preface stuff too, I’m realizing that women’s approval is a much better metric (I was gonna say yardstick, but I caught myself) for the quality of a personality or a game or piece of writing.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Nice piece Bonnie. As for the delciously redundant flame war that it has sprouted, I suggest everyone take a step back and realize that yes, you are making comments that have been made a billion times and have likely been responded to in a very similar way as those posting after you responded.
Which isn’t to say I’m not perfectly guilty of the same damn thing. I got into an idiotic argument on a board a frequent about the whole “gay” as slang for stupid thing and how it isn’t in anyway detached from the concept of homosexuality. Needless to say the proponents of its use claim they don’t think of gay as meaning, well gay as it were, but rather simply meaning stupid. That argument is so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe they actually stand by it. How could it possibly be removed when that is still the way most people refer to those that dabble in sex with the same gender, or those whose main source of sexual pleasure is derived from those similarly genitally equipped as themselves? How long do you think it took for a word like “paddywagon” to lose the racism behind it? It certainly wasn’t 3 or 4 years. So, until a significant amount of time has passed, I feel you can’t cling to some sort of argument that, no I didn’t mean being gay was stupid rather that the word gay means stupid.
As for gaming culture, I agree with whoever the heck it was above that said it, gamers are a bunch of idiots. Yes I’m a gamer and yes my best friends are as well, but I’ve been online too much and been around too many gamers to believe that the gaming world is anything but a bastion of misogyny, homophobia, and a far amount of racism as well. By the by according to the Oxford English Dictionary homophobia is defined thusly “Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.” Games, unfortunately cater to this and don’t do a good job of fighting it. I’ve had a miniscule amount of influence on games and I’ve tried to do something about it, to no avail. I also know women who work in games who face the issue on a daily basis and believe me it is out there.
So really the homophobia falls in line with the, I’ll say less than socially progressive, world of gamers in general. As to whether or not people use that as a way to reassure themselves of their own heterosexuality, I don’t know how much strength that argument really has. There are certainly truths to it, but I think it ignores the fact that some people really just don’t like gay people or what they do. Which I still find idiotic, mostly because what they do is about as in my face as what anyone else does. I’ve never been forced to sit through some hot man on man action and I feel that any revulsion I might feel were I to be in that situation would mostly come from the oddness of watching anyone else have sex in front of me, be it two men or a man and a woman.
And may I question our irritated heterosexual friend as to what in the world the phrases “100% heterosexual” and “red-blooded man” mean. Am I to suppose that the blood of gay men is some sort of greenish color, or perhaps that we now have a gradient for our sexuality? Perhaps if I don’t find Scarlett Johanson hot I only fall in the 93rd percentile of heterosexuality. Too bad, I usually test so well.
Another excellent piece Bonnie, keep up the good work for the females who happen to be *gasp* of the gamer persuasion. Maybe if I’m ever less lazy, something I find highly unlikely, I’ll start putting my own pieces together or else work on this in grad school. That would be fun too. Think of it games and grad school, an unholy combination if ever there was one.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Devon,
(1) You must surf an Internet far more delicate than the one I do if the exchange here comes across as a “flame war.”
(2) Needless to say the proponents of its use claim they don't think of gay as meaning, well gay as it were, but rather simply meaning stupid. That argument is so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe they actually stand by it.
Deal with it, brother; “gay” is used in exactly that way - including by homosexuals themselves. One of my earliest recollections of that usage, in fact, comes from a family friend Alan. Alan was so queer that he made Paul Lynde look like Ted Nugent.
“Oh, now how gay is this!” he remarked about something on TV.
“You mean gay like… gay?” I asked.
“I mean gay like… RETARDED!” he shot back, rolling his eyes. We both had a good laugh.
(3) So, until a significant amount of time has passed, I feel you can't cling to some sort of argument that, no I didn't mean being gay was stupid rather that the word gay means stupid.
And that amount would be…? The above comment was made in 1979. I remember the date because Alan was visiting for my 12th birthday. Will 27 years do?
(4) As for gaming culture…
Let’s not confuse the larger, wider, older gaming community with the microcephalic, socially-malformed juveniles who comprise its noisiest segment. The morons are getting a lot of attention these days, alas, because they’re such easy prey for gaming company marketers. But they are not “gaming” - at least, not yet, although the alarmingly-accelerating enstupidation of our hobby may yet see them swarm over the last few old school holdouts like myself in a spectacle evoking the one good scene in that dreadful Alien vs Predator movie, wherein several Predators make their last stand atop some manner of prehistorical ziggurat.
(5) Am I to suppose that the blood of gay men is some sort of greenish color, or perhaps that we now have a gradient for our sexuality?
Don’t you watch South Park? It’s some kind of fell, viscous tar. Mr Garrison explained it to Stan.
November 7th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Might I just say that I find the defence of the use of gay as synonomous with stupid, itself containing the word retarded to be mildly amusing. Look, the reality is where could the word gay=stupid possibly arise from? I mean seriously are we to suppose that independent of it referring to a sexual orientation it also somehow came to mean idiotic? Yes I understand we should be able to separate etymology from words themselves, but in the case of a word that still has a significant charge to it, such as gay, you can’t separate the two arbitrarily and say you only mean it in the non-offensive way.
Also to defend something by saying that your gay friend, who if he indeed passes Paul Lynde must be up for some sort of award, uses it and therefor it’s all cool isn’t strong enough. Just as black people can discriminate against blacks, a gay man can use a word that he feels doesn’t deride his own lifestyle but still has that effect on other people. I suppose in the end my real feeling is that I wouldn’t like it if saying stuff was “white” became synonymous with lame or ass-backwards or any of the things that it could reasonably be associated with. I think that for that reason it is better to remove gay as a derogatory remark from our lexicon. Having said that, I think I’ll also move into my wonderful communist society and live in a peaceful world with no religious conflict as well.
As to the general status of gamers, I hate to break it to you my friend, but the war is long over, we are just fighting over the scraps at the moment. Look at console sales and what games sell and I think you will find that gamer culture is mainstream culture and mainstream culture is anything but accepting of alternative lifestyles. Sucks I know and thats why I’d like to think some of us can find a way to fix that, but it be what it be.
November 7th, 2006 at 2:00 am
Also I’d like to add that being for from the distaff side of things myself, and unfortunately far less well acquainted with the side than I’d prefer, I’m a big proponent of the idea of performative gender. Granted, I’m saying that only mostly thinking I understand what I just said, but the cyber world allows for a very interesting confluence of societal oddities and for a wide distribution of gender identities. I mean where else could a gay man have a lesbian sexual encounter with a straight man?
November 7th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Before I get started here, I want you to understand this: I *DO* have homosexual friends, and I don't approve of behavior that is anti-gay or discriminatory. If someone wants to live a certain way and it doesn't harm anyone else, then they should be allowed to do so.
Every antisemite has his “good jew”. A point well worth remembering.
Language evolves based on certain criteria. For instance, "~gay' has taken on this usage simply because the homosexual lifestyle is considered an abberation. It is just a word.
It has ? Is it ?
I mean, “just a word”. Only the main tool we use to assess reality, to most but the maddest or most enlightened it might as well be just a portion of reality itself, why would it matter ?
Furries are considered abberations. They’re mocked by most as the ultimate fruitcake community. You can see them mocked, but not the word used as an insult. Why would that be ? Why is the homosexual comunity suffering verbal abuse “disproportional to its social importance” (strange that, have you noticed that some people are annoyed by the “disproportion” of the defence, but not by that of the bashing ?) ?
I mean, there just might be something important, at the very least significant about our functioning as a communty, why look into it ?
I didn't say that being gay isn't real. I said that it isn't real *to the people who use the term in the fashion described.* Just like AIDS wasn't real to the kids in that schoolyard.
+
On a side note, I grew up in late-eighties Austin, TX, in the very poor part of town that is mostly Hispanic and African american. AIDS was something very real to these kids' parents, and as horrifying as it is to us as adults in 2006, it wasn't real or horrifying to 8-year old kids. They treated it like it was cooties, or germs, or something similar.
a) Because we all know the poor are an epicenter of AIDS epidemic, obviously. (Now excuse me as I go bang my head on a wall for a couple of minutes)
b) Don’t you think that if some children play “"~AIDS' games” (whatever that is, children as far as I know don’t play those in my poor neighboorhood; they mug old ladies, like all industrious uneducated poor kids with no prospects do), it’s because AIDS, as a representation, if not an actualisation, is actualy very real to them ?
I’m not with Freud when he says that game/play is the opposite of reality. Games are important because they are primary conceptual replication tools. They’re reality enforcers. Think about the implications of that for a minute.
The true point to my rant above, which admittedly was botched in delivery, is that mainstreaming acceptance is not something that is going to work in the gaming community. The very act of trying is inherently flawed and will only push people like me, who don't understand you and can't understand you and probably will NEVER understand you, to react in an angry and counter-productive manner.
Don’t be so hard on yourself. I’m sure you can understand. There’s no reason some people of mediocre intelligence and limited scope might and you wouldn’t, unless you wan’t to argue you’re different on the onthological level, at which point I’ll leave.
I mean, if you can understand a total abstraction of reality like mathematics, if you can understand death, something you’ll only get by proxy for as long as you live (duh !) chances are you can understand someone’s different experiences of life. Whether it’s sexual or religious preferences, handicap (”I mean, come on, I’ve never missed my legs, how would you want me to understand that girl in the wheelchair ? She just might as well be an alien”), taste in coffee blend, whatever.
You have a right not to agree with someone, but not to deprive that someone of a part of reality, which is what you do when you say you “can’t understand”.
@Bonnie: nice column, though I think you’re forgetting the use of “gay” as an insult is an english speaker thing, which means it’s not necessarily a gamer thing, but an english speaking gamer thing. Unless I was very lucky, I hardly found direct equivalent of that on french and japanese speaking servers I played on. The closest thing I can think of in french to the use of the “gay word” in english speaking communities is “dtc” aka “dans ton cul” (”in your ass”), which hints at something a bit different, if akin, in terms of conceptual relationships. :)
To quote again from South Park (if I remember well but now I have a doubt): “God hates homosexuals, that’s why he banished them to France”. ^_^”
November 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Devon,
Might I just say that I find the defence of the use of gay as synonomous with stupid, itself containing the word retarded to be mildly amusing.
Just mildly? I found/find it damned funny.
As regards the entymology/etiology argument, I can only quote Seanbaby’s immortal words:
*****
Whether gays like it or not, “gay” can also mean stupid or lame. Like for example, “This letter is fucking gay.” But remember how it used to mean happy? Faggot used to mean a bundle of wood, fags were cigarettes, queer used to just mean strange, and fairies used to grant us wishes and turn our pumpkins into racecars. Now all of them mean, “I wish I had some hot cock sex.” For gay people to complain about someone co-opting the meaning of a word is maximumly ridiculous.
http://www.seanbaby.com/news/glaad.htm
*****
Also to defend something by saying that your gay friend, who if he indeed passes Paul Lynde must be up for some sort of award, uses it and therefor it's all cool isn't strong enough.
It’s strong enough to nuke the argument that the use of “gay=lame” comes from some desire to slander homosexuals, even if obliquely. Alan was as gay as a Christmas drag show on Fire Island and so “out” that “out” didn’t even cover it - we’ll need a new term. Alan and the many other out-and-proud gays I’ve known have used the term in both ways.
I suppose in the end my real feeling is that I wouldn't like it if saying stuff was "white" became synonymous with lame or ass-backwards or any of the things that it could reasonably be associated with.
Whoa - a little racial masochism there, Dev? People can and do use “white” as a synonym for lame / timid / boring / predicatable / bourgeois etc. Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard someone refer to WASPs in anything but a negative or mocking way?
Having said that, I think I'll also move into my wonderful communist society and live in a peaceful world with no religious conflict as well.
Because nothing works like… communism. :)
As to the general status of gamers, I hate to break it to you my friend, but the war is long over, we are just fighting over the scraps at the moment. Look at console sales and what games sell and I think you will find that gamer culture is mainstream culture and mainstream culture is anything but accepting of alternative lifestyles. Sucks I know and thats why I'd like to think some of us can find a way to fix that, but it be what it be.
Well, you’re probably right there. I do maintain, though, that those of us who man the redoubts can make a difference. Our numbers are small, but we’ve got all the good folks.
Also I'd like to add that being for from the distaff side of things myself, and unfortunately far less well acquainted with the side than I'd prefer, I'm a big proponent of the idea of performative gender. Granted, I'm saying that only mostly thinking I understand what I just said, but the cyber world allows for a very interesting confluence of societal oddities and for a wide distribution of gender identities. I mean where else could a gay man have a lesbian sexual encounter with a straight man?
That’s a pretty expansive definition of ‘lesbian,’ dude.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Here’s the thing, guys… you just can’t win on the internet.
A lot of homosexual/just not hetero people find the use of “gay” as a synonym for “stupid” offensive, myself included. Some don’t, to which I applaud their infinite tolerance with my best golf clap, as I would to the gay people who don’t believe that equal marriage is a good idea.
*golf clap*
Fighting it out in someone’s blog isn’t going to get us anywhere, no matter how many big words you use, how many gay friends you have (gay cred FTW), especially in the face of the amazing right everyone has, on the internet, to completely trample over other people’s rights to read something and not be offended. People just don’t give a damn if the nameless, faceless person behind a screen gets offended by their bigoted and asinine remarks, because they don’t have to.
So, my advice is to face it. Ask your friends, and others who might genuinely care, to avoid using the term “gay” in a way that offends you. Explain your reasoning to them. Some won’t get it, and some won’t honour your request, but really, that’s all you can do, isn’t it? Maybe, if enough people do it, we’ll start to see a change.
And speaking of words… yes, “faggot” does mean a bundle of sticks, fit for burning. Which is where the offensive part comes from, likening a gay person to something “fit for burning.”
And seriously, it’s Seanbaby. As intelligent as he is, to take what he says as scripture is, well, “maximumly ridiculous.” He’s a straight gamer, and as big of an internet d-lister that he may be, he can’t see the other side of the argument. Or, he may be able to see it, but he probably can’t appreciate it.
In short… a lot of internet people can not, and will not understand or appreciate our arguments here, but may get a kick out of riling up some gay people out there for their amusement.
So let’s not give it to them.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Oh, and by the way… awesome article, Bonnie. Was pleasantly surprised to read it on Joystiq, and I’m sorry that some people just can’t stand to see something that might make them think in a gaming news blog.
Keep up the good work.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:58 am
I quoted Seanbaby because he’s funny. His statement is no more ’scripture’ than yours is. Or mine.
I understand and appreciate the other side of this argument just fine. I simply don’t agree with it. I most especially disagree with the larger notion that someone’s offensensitivity (thanks, Opus) should give them veto power over what others are allowed to say.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Wait, I’m supposed to be okay with “gay” (or queer or cunt, or what have you) as a derogatory term because that’s just the way the word is used in this patriarchal (and yes, homophobic) society? No thanks.
I’ll be offended each and every time because the underlying message, whether the speaker realizes it or not, is that I’m lacking because I deviate from our cultural norms. To not have to be affected by language like this is an undeniable privilege.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:34 am
No, the underlying message is that things can have different, equally-valid meanings to different people.
A Hindu and a Jew will have quite different reactions to the sight of a swastika. Which one is correct?
Also… If you’re gay, you DO deviate from our cultural norms. So what? Homosexuality is not the cultural (or biological) norm. So what? I am left-handed and thus a ‘deviant’ myself. So what?
Where does the “lacking” part come in? Those straight people who do hate and wish to hurt homosexuals have no lack of ways in which to express themselves, believe me. They don’t need to fall back on word games.
PS - All societies of historical consequence are/have been patriarchal. Using that as a descriptive (accusatory?) adjective is just silly.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
To use “patriarchal” as descriptive isn’t silly because it’s true, we do live in such a society–and just because patriarchies have been around for so long doesn’t mean that it hasn’t priviledged certain groups and has been extremely oppressive of others. In that patriarchies act as such, they deserve analysis and critique. Sure I could just suck it up and say “oh well,” but where’s the fun in that?
I could have used a better word that lacking. What I mean is that because I’m queer, I’m looked at as deficient in some aspect or other: confused, weird, what have you.
People suffer from deviating from the norm in our society. Heterosexuals get a slew of rights just from being born straight. You being left handed? Doesn’t mean that you’re a target of hate crimes, and that you can’t get benefits for your partner. Doesn’t mean that you can’t marry who you want–you’ve heard those arguments before.
As far as homosexuality not being a “biological” norm, sexuality does not consist of two poles made up of homosexuality and heterosexuality, it exists on a continuum, like Kinsey found. Also, scientific research, done through the eyes of, yes, the patriarchy, can be horribly skewed. I suggest reading some Ruth Hubbard, she gets at the core of that issue better than I could ever paraphrase.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Well…
(1) The existence of a continuum of sexual interest (and activity) does not change the fact that only a small minority of people are homosexual - that is, have exclusive attraction to their own sex. Therefore, being outrightly gay (as opposed to bi, “questioning,” etc.) is not the norm for humans.
I hope it’s understood that I’m using “norm” in the strict sense and not as a synonym for good, proper, healthy, or what have you. My point is that if someone tells you that being gay is “not normal,” I think the correct response is “So fucking what?” instead of “How dare you say that!” or “What do you mean by ‘normal?’ or “There is no normal!”
(2) Thou speakest truly about patriarchy, but even there I think it’s a very open question as to whether or not some other structure - matriarchy, say - would automatically be more acceptable to gay people.
(3) So we heteros are born straight, are we? That’s awfully essentialist of you.
Just kidding. A little playful counter-parry there. (I read your blog.) And I’m familiar with Ruth Hubbard.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:54 am
:) Cool, I’m glad to come across someone else who’s familiar with Hubbard. I also really like Anne Fausto-Sterling, she makes me swoon. I was trying to say is that to say that there’s only a small minority of purely gay and straight people–most people fall in the middle somewhere. I should also say that I’m also a big fan of Adrienne Rich’s “cumpulsory sexuality.” Not a too big of a surprise there.
Your definition of your use of norm is helpful, just want to say though that I grew up in a red neck place, so some people view the norm as word and therefore are very violent and angry with anything that doesn’t match it. Needless to say, when I turned 18, I left for the big city.
I agree–a matriarchy not being the answer to a patriarchy. I’m one of those idealists who dreams of puppies and roses and an egalitarian society. So I may never see one–it’s damn exciting when some things do change.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I meant “cumpulsory _hetero_sexuality.” Opps.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Egalitarian, eh? The conservative in me is required to respond that people are only “fixable” to a point, after which it’s a mug’s game.
That’s no reason to stop trying, of course.
On language matters, one thing that really irks me, in addition to the use of ‘norm/al’ to mean good, healthy or proper, is when people use ‘natural’ in the same way. “But that’s not natural,” they cry. Jeezus. Know what else isn’t? Folks risking their lives for other peoples’ kids before they’ve had their own. Think about it; that kicks the most basic genetic survival imperatives right in the teeth. But we encourage such selflessness, damned ‘unnatural’ though it is. Or perhaps everything is ‘natural,’ in the end, being part of nature.
Bottom line for me is that I’m a “combinationist.” I reject both social constructivism and bio-essentialism as exclusive answers. We’re not mere animals but we do come from that and are shaped by it. People are born gay, but why? Is there an evolutionary/adaptive reason for it? I have no idea. I don’t actually care all that much, truth be told. I’m just biding time until Cthulhu wakes up…
“Compulsory HETEROsexuality,” yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. Although the “compulsory sexuality” sounds like fun…
November 10th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Perhaps this is simply me nitpicking when I should have left well enough alone, but this debate fascinates me, and I feel obligated to jump back into the proverbial arena as it were.
I’m not a post modernist, so every time I hear phrases like “what *is* ‘normal’??” or “normal doesn’t exist”, I think of some pretentious little child that has some angst issues with their parents, and I then think of how wonderful it would be to stab them in the face with a ball point pen. Maybe that’s just me, but I think that’s a weak argument, because you could say that about anything, and it doesn’t solve anything, it just muddies the argument and makes both people lose. And while I certainly don’t have any illusions that this argument will be solved over some random person’s blog on the internet, I don’t think we should simply leave it at that point either.
I think that there has been enough science to prove that people are born with a certain sexual preference, I apologize that my knowledge is lacking in which scientists to refer you to, but let’s just say this is so, for argument’s sake. If you’re not convinced however, I have a few personal anecdotes to share, as you have shared one brain. A friend of mine has an uncle who was married for over 30 years, and had children. But, it turns out, he was gay, and he recently came out as being gay, knowing full well that it had the potential to destroy his life and his marriage. It turned out fine in the end, his wife understood completely, and he gets to see his children regularly. But the point is, 30 years of ’straight’ marriage wasn’t able to ‘fix’ his homosexuality. In addition to that, I have 2 friends who were both raised by lesbian parents. Both of which are very tolerant and respectful towards gays, are very open minded, but are very much straight, much to my bisexual chagrin (as they are both very attractive).
The reason I bring this up, is because it is an absolutely essential starting ground for when you talk about “sexual deviants” that “don’t fit the norms of society”. Because when you *are* born a certain way, and by the way we may be a minority, but we are not a small minority, 10% of the American population is 30 million, it brings up a whole new angle on how rights should be given. I don’t think a lot of gay people *want* to be gay. I have another gay friend who came out in high school, and his life was absolute hell because of it, he had to drop out, and started taking hard drugs. That isn’t even to mention my own personal stories of not being able to come out as a bisexual (I still haven’t to a large extent [having had girlfriends is good cover to my parents]) for fear of persecution from my friends. And I live in a liberal town with pride marches every year! I can’t even imagine what it’s like for gay people that grow up in dixie as 100littledolls has, and as (s?)he’s pointed out, that is completely different from growing up left handed. So while we might share a minority viewpoint being “societal deviants”, you don’t have to worry about being raped in a back alley with a broomstick for being left handed.
My point is, being gay is normal. There should be no such thing as being “sexually deviant”. Of course there is, but I’m with 100littledolls in believing that we can live in an egalitarian world. Gays, bisexuals, questioning, transgendered, asexuals, etc. etc., are natural, normal parts of this society, and we deserve to be treated no differently. And simply fudging the arguments by saying “well, what *is* normal???” just doesn’t do it for me, because I know well enough that I am.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
My point is simply this: If by “normal” we mean “what most people are,” than being gay is abnormal, as is left-handedness, musical talent, great height and so forth. Most people are not homosexual, southpaws, gifted composers, 7 feet tall, etc. Simple as that.
This is not a moral judgment; just an observation along the lines of “most fire trucks are red.” Yes, there are white, green and yellow ones. But most are red. Non-red fire trucks are abnormal.
As for people being inherently gay, I’ll see Mischa’s example and raise the bid with… transsexuals. Think about a biological male who believes, sanely and sincerely, that he is really a woman and wants to change his anatomy to reflect that. I have two such people as friends and got a ringside seat for the before-during-after of their experiences.
Transsexualism, for me, is smoking gun (smoking hormone?) evidence for the reality of inherent sexual identity. No one can seriously believe that a man would be compelled by social, cultural or peer pressure to… swap his penis for a vagina. I mean, really. These folks really ARE women (or men, if they’re FTM) but cursed to have been born into the wrong sex.
Which makes this whole thing much more interesting, because now we have the idea of male and female minds (so to speak) not necessarily being born into male and female bodies, respectively. I wonder if this is connected to “butch” lesbianism or the fetish for strong, harsh authoritarian women some straight men have? I don’t claim to know - I’m just thinking out loud here.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:57 am
I agree with you completely on transgendered people, and I apologize for my oversensitivity (maybe the apology itself is oversensitive? Who knows, I just don’t like to seem abrasive). I was just saying that when someone says gays aren’t “normal”, that typically means that something is wrong with them. Which isn’t to say of course, that you think that there is, I’m just saying that it’s a slippery slope between “abnormality”, and “a disease that needs to be cured”. That’s my 58 kopecs (2 cents).
But yes, great discussion!
November 11th, 2006 at 10:15 am
No apologies necessary.
FURRIES are a disease that needs to be cured. With fire. Gay people are just… people.
For the record, I do recognize that there are plenty of genuine homophobes, misogynists and other haters who hide behind the “Hey, lighten up it’s just a joke/word” line.
Good chat, I agree. For something even more outre, look up my “Kerek” post here from awhile back.
November 30th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
>FURRIES are a disease that needs to be cured. With fire. Gay people are just"¦ people.
Uh no. People who make such a big deal about what other people masturbate to are a disease that need to be cured. 99% of furries do not really do anything different than anyone else except get aroused by a bunch of drawings. Wow big frigging deal and a huge crime against humanity, eh? Maybe we ought to round up hentai freaks and burn them too.