|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I'm not homophobic but...
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
This article has raised some interesting issues for me. A community opera production which was due to open very soon, has run into problems because of issues about a character's sexual orientation. The cast features many primary school-aged children who are being withdrawn by their school:
quote:
Word came back from Opera North that, unless I removed the lines "I'm queer" and "I prefer a lad to a lass", the whole project was in jeopardy. (It was by now far too late to replace 300 schoolchildren.)
What I find bizarre is the insistence that no one – not the school, not Opera North, not the local education authority – is being homophobic. Instead, we have the strange position that, because the children are of primary-school age, these lines are too difficult and confusing for them.
The problem seems to be that even knowing about the existence of gay people is problematic for children. Is it reasonable to argue that this is not an issue of homophobia?
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
It is probably partly embarrassment... many parents struggle with the issue of explaining heterosexual sex to their children. Unless you are perfectly comfortable with the idea of explaining sex to a small child (who WILL ask you for more details in a distressingly loud voice) in a public place - conscious that everyone else within earshot will be earwigging and quietly sniggering, or in extreme cases confronting you with the words 'That Is Absolutely Disgusting! A Child That Age Doesn't Need To Know THAT!', don't judge them too harshly.
The other issue is the parents who think that simply telling their children that there ARE other options besides 'insert tab A into slot B' is enough to change their sexual orientation. That's more serious, of course, and likely a symptom of homophobia.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The problem seems to be that even knowing about the existence of gay people is problematic for children. Is it reasonable to argue that this is not an issue of homophobia?
I'm not that convinced that is the problem. The article says nothing other than 'primary school age' as regards the age of the children. That's 4 to 11 year-olds. So in there you're going to have a huge range of knowledge about sex and relationships, from those who have no idea at all, through those who know the mechanics of how babies are made but not about the sexual attraction side of that, to those who understand the idea of a sexual relationship which is not purely about making babies.
My son is 6 and understands the mechanics of heterosexual sex in terms of making babies. At 6, the idea that someone might involve themselves in such a ridiculous activity for fun is completely unknown to him and would be laughable. I don't think that's going to sink in for a while, and the idea of same-sex realtionships is going to be relevant to him some time after that, because at the moment the knowledge he has is purely in terms of a man and woman and conception.
While I know some parents go too far with this, taking their kids out of sex ed at school etc, I don't think it's unreasonable (at this age) to want my son's main educators in this area to be me and my husband, as we can judge what he's ready for and how to answer questions in a way that works for him. I'd certainly want the question of homosexuality to arise form his asking why Mum's friend E lives with another woman rather than a man, rather than singing about being queer in a musical.
(Although having said that, it appears from the article that the children had no involvement in the scenes where the offending lines were spoken/sung. Which does make it all a bit odd.)
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The problem is, though, that because adults hear these things and immediately think SEX!!! they assume that children do as well.
Children know perfectly well that there are boys that like girls and girls that like boys. They're usually called Mummys and Daddys. This doesn't mean that children know all the details about how Mummys and Daddys show their affection for each other. And while the discovery that sometimes you get two Mummys or two Daddys might be quite interesting, that doesn't mean that children will think any more about what same-sex couples get up to than they do about what opposite-sex couples get up to.
I've seen before (possibly here on the Ship) that the word 'homosexual' seems to make heterosexual adults think specifically about sexual activity in a way that they wouldn't for opposite-sex situations. Apparently the word 'gay' doesn't have quite the same effect, but it's still a general point. When straights think about gays, they specifically focus on gays 'doing it'.
[ 05. July 2011, 12:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Yes. It's because male+female is so the usual thing that nobody even associates it with "sex" - or at least, that's not everybody's first thought. It's "family" and "Mom and Dad" and "Valentine's Day" and so forth.
What happens, I think, is that nobody can really imagine that two men or two women might really be "in love" with each other. When the main character says "I prefer a lad to a lass," nobody thinks "Ah, he's talking about romance and hearts-and-flowers and holding hands"; they think, instead, "Ah, he's talking about anal sex."
I wish we could get beyond this at some point; hopefully we will after awhile....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
Those are really good points, and you're right, half the time it's our adult understandings (or misunderstandings) that lead us to tie ourselves in knots answering kids' questions which we think are going to be Terribly Big Issues, and when it comes to it the kids' reponse is 'oh. What's for lunch?'.
It certainly hasn't occurred to my son to connect the relationships of gay friends of ours to the aforementioned babymaking activities. He just knows that they love each other like mummy and daddy love each other.
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
orfeo: quote:
When straights think about gays, they specifically focus on gays 'doing it'.
Maybe all the straights you know do. When I think about gays, I think about my friends and relations who happen to be gay. Two of them have been selected as my daughter's guardians in the event that I pop my clogs before her 18th birthday.
Oh, and what Birdie said.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When straights think about gays, they specifically focus on gays 'doing it'.
Indeed, when homophobic straights do, they surely do. That's why they're homophobic, of course- because the idea of two men fucking stimulates a complex and uncomfortable emotional response in them, to which they unfortunately react with hostility. If they see a man hugging his brother at the airport, they’re fine, but if they see a man hugging his boyfriend in the airport, they immediately think of them fucking.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, homophobia I think in many if not most homophobes is predicated not on moral considerations, but the "yick factor." It squigs certain straights out to think of two men "doing it" and so it therefore must be wrong. Anything that squigs me out that much has to be wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
It is probably partly embarrassment... many parents struggle with the issue of explaining heterosexual sex to their children. Unless you are perfectly comfortable with the idea of explaining sex to a small child (who WILL ask you for more details in a distressingly loud voice) in a public place - conscious that everyone else within earshot will be earwigging and quietly sniggering, or in extreme cases confronting you with the words 'That Is Absolutely Disgusting! A Child That Age Doesn't Need To Know THAT!', don't judge them too harshly.
My best friend had the experience of having to explain to her six-year-old son (my godson) after he told a classmate that he liked Justin Bieber and got an "Ew you're gay" in response. He asked what this meant.
Her response (I'm paraphrasing) went along the lines of "Often a man falls in love with a woman, and a woman falls in love with a man. Sometimes a man can love a man, or a woman can love a woman, and when people feel like this it's called being gay. There's nothing at all wrong with that, and you're not to use it as a bad name, even if other children do. But just because you like Justin Bieber, that doesn't make you gay. It's not about what music you like."
Behold how it's possible to explain this simple concept without having to go into the details of what anyone does in bed. Children are familiar with the concepts of love and relationships to some extent.
In fact, I'm not really sure how you can get away with *not* explaining that gay people exist, given that they're bound to encounter some at some point, or hear the word somewhere. Just as you have to give some kind of explanation to your kid about where his baby sister came from, but that doesn't mean explaining exactly what gets mummy and daddy in the mood, their techniques, prowess and choice of position.
I don't actually have a problem with explaining the facts of life to a child, either. But that's a completely different issue.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
In the old days, it was also thought (I think) that if you told kids that men could be in love with men, and women with women - well, surely that alone would turn these kids into homosexuals themselves. It was as if heterosexuals had no confidence in heterosexuality at all!
I'm not sure how much this is a factor anymore, though....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When straights think about gays, they specifically focus on gays 'doing it'.
Indeed, when homophobic straights do, they surely do. That's why they're homophobic, of course- because the idea of two men fucking stimulates a complex and uncomfortable emotional response in them, to which they unfortunately react with hostility. If they see a man hugging his brother at the airport, they’re fine, but if they see a man hugging his boyfriend in the airport, they immediately think of them fucking.
And, I would hazard, in a way that they don't think of when they see a man and a woman hugging.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I stopped being reasonable about this sort of thing many years ago. Nowadays, people get as far as "I'm not homophobic but...", and I just say, "Yeah you are." From that point on, they can talk to the feckin' hand.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
I've been pondering this since posting earlier. Re-reading my posts they look like the second contradicts the first.
I think the first probably does illustrate the thought process of the people who object (and, am I missing something in the article, or is it not actually clear who is objecting? School? Parents? LEA? Who?). I think they are scared that they're suddenly going to have to go into detailed explanations of the mechanics of same-sex sexual relationships with their 4 year-old.
Which, as subsequent posts illustrate, isn't the case at all.
I think the problem is more stupidity than homophobia, although I'm sure there's an overlap...
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Here's the response from Opera North.
Whilst the language is carefully neutral they do seem to be passing the blame to the school.
I was struck by this -
quote:
We do have to recognise that this project is being treated as part of the core curriculum for the school concerned, and to that extent very different from a community project where participation is voluntary.
I should stress that I don't personally think this gets the school or Opera North off the hook. But I suspect that it hints at some of the discussions that may have taken place.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
orfeo: quote:
Behold how it's possible to explain this simple concept without having to go into the details of what anyone does in bed.
You must have missed the bit in my subsequent post where I said I didn't spend all my life thinking about what Teh Gayz do in bed.
I have quite a lot of experience at explaining things to my daughter, thank you, and I am perfectly capable of doing it without advice from anybody else, especially someone who lives on the other side of the world and has never met her.
What surprises me, if the project was being treated as part of the core curriculum rather than something extra, is that nobody appears to have foreseen this problem. This suggests either that noone gave the school a copy of the whole libretto before they agreed to take part, or that the school is seriously out of touch with its families. Parents can't be forced to allow their children to take part in the production, however wrong-headed their reasons for refusing permission may be.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Whilst the language is carefully neutral they do seem to be passing the blame to the school.
It does look like they're taking the line that they just can't do the piece if three hundred participants pull out at short notice. That seems fair enough.
I agree: from what's there, it appears the school is being unreasonable and prejudiced (or is bowing to pressure from prejudiced and unreasonable parents - same thing). It seems perfectly easy to me to explain that some men fall in love with women and some men fall in love with men, and vice versa. Should I have children, they're going to be familiar with our friends in same-sex couples.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
A report from the Beeb is here.
The Guardian article is by the writer, who understandably feels miffed by the whole thing. But he is one side of the argument. Opera North is not the other side - that would be the school. But if the BBC article is to be believed, the issues went well beyond those mentioned by Lee Hall. I don't know what the school has to say, but I would strongly suggest that justice reqires that the stories of two disputants both be heard, and no doubt it will come out over the next few days.
Maybe they deserve all the criticism you give them, but until then, being prosecutor, judge and jury will simply generate the law of the kangaroo court.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having seen the fall-out from a couple of similar situations, ISTM that a couple of loud voices were raised (probably saying "I'm not against gays, but...") which were just loud enough that some of the powers-that-be in the school administration felt they had to DO Something.
Administrations never actually consider the effects of their decisions until after the stuff hits the fan, since they are more concerned with appearing to be doing the Right Thing in the course of the meeting, not what the RL situation might be. Then, covered in the splatter, they divert attention to something else, leaving the mess for someone else to deal with.
Subordinates (i.e. the people who actually teach the kids) have to be Good Little Citizens and do what they are told, no matter how asinine the decision, because Those Who Go To Meetings don't like to take blame for anything
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo: quote:
Behold how it's possible to explain this simple concept without having to go into the details of what anyone does in bed.
You must have missed the bit in my subsequent post where I said I didn't spend all my life thinking about what Teh Gayz do in bed.
I have quite a lot of experience at explaining things to my daughter, thank you, and I am perfectly capable of doing it without advice from anybody else, especially someone who lives on the other side of the world and has never met her.
Um... yeah... wrong target.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Yeah, it was me. Having looked over my post it probably did look like I was trying to explain to you, personally, what you should do with your own kid. Sorry about that. That's not what I meant. I was simply trying to stress that this is a different issue from explaining sex.
It wasn't really directed at you at all. It was more aimed at the conversation as a whole, with you being quoted because you raised the issue of embarrassment.
[ 06. July 2011, 08:48: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
In an interview on local news last night, the headmistress explained that it was the use of the word "queer" that she objected to. At the school it is taught that it is an unacceptable word to use as an insult.
The author had already changed other words in other parts of the play (eg the use of the word "stupid" as an insult) at the request of the school, but drew the line at this one.
I've seen the text of the scene in question on the "support Lee Hall" facebook page. In it, an old man is being harassed by a group of young men - there are threats of violence ("hit him!", "kick his head in") and mild swearing ("sod off"). The old man responds back to his taunters with a speech/song including the lines:
quote:
Of course I’m queer
That’s why I left here.
So if you infer
That I prefer
A lad to a lass
And him working class
I’d have to concur.
Given there are no children from the school involved in that scene, I can't help wondering why the school is picking on "queer" but not mentioning the whole tone of the scene, which is probably something most children would have seen at some point in the playground. Surely in it's entirety, the scene would be a great discussion point to have with the pupils on what is acceptable and not acceptable behaviour?
TBH, I'd be more worried about exposing the younger kids to the implied violence against an old man than the word "queer", which he is using in the "yeah, I'm gay, so what" sense, not as an insult to someone else.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
In an interview on local news last night, the headmistress explained that it was the use of the word "queer" that she objected to. At the school it is taught that it is an unacceptable word to use as an insult.
OK so this is interesting. I don't have much (any) contact with primary school kids - at what age is it expected for them to start understand the difference between something being portrayed as part of a story and what is acceptable in real life?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ Large numbers of ADULTS can't tell the difference. I've mentioned on the ship before several instances where it seems people conclude, wrongly, that depiction of something automatically means approval of something.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
That's what I like to call the Showboat argument. "African-Americans work on the Mississippi ... " ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
So apparently changing 'queer' to 'gay' resolved the issue and everyone's happy.
The writer comes across as quite a dick in that piece. Strikes me as the sort of person who screams "persecution" and "censorship" at every little thing anyone asks him to change.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
It just seems to me that he and the school needed to sit down and discuss it a lot sooner. I'm pretty sure in earlier reports he stated that he'd asked for that and they'd refused. Either way having Opera North as a middle-man didn't seem to help matters.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by yellowroom:
In an interview on local news last night, the headmistress explained that it was the use of the word "queer" that she objected to. At the school it is taught that it is an unacceptable word to use as an insult.
OK so this is interesting. I don't have much (any) contact with primary school kids - at what age is it expected for them to start understand the difference between something being portrayed as part of a story and what is acceptable in real life?
This is the bit I find bitterly hilarious. The head teacher teaches the kids in her school that 'queer' is an unacceptable word to use as an insult. So she cannot possibly allow the word to be used--not as an insult but as a reclaimed personal identification--by a character on the stage. However she is happy to have the show go on if the word 'queer' is replaced by the word 'gay' (with suitable changes in the rhyme scheme). Does she teach her pupils that 'gay' is an unacceptable word to use as an insult? Bet you anything that she doesn't, largely because she knows it would be futile: on every playground up and down the land 'gay' is the insult of choice. It is used to mean 'stupid,' 'embarrassing,' 'lame,' and the like.
[ 12. July 2011, 16:43: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
RE: Gwai's comment: "Still is. I've heard people say that if we let teh gayz adopt, they will teach innocent children to be gay too."
Ah, yes, that heterosexual bug-a-boo, the old fear about the "militant homosexuals"! I used to joke about how us militant homosexuals were driving tanks down suburban streets (pink tanks for queeny men, black leather and metal studded tanks for butch lesbians and butch gay men...) actively "recruiting" innocent and pure heterosexual teens. Mwahahahahaha! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
RE: Gwai's comment: "Still is. I've heard people say that if we let teh gayz adopt, they will teach innocent children to be gay too."
Ah, yes, that heterosexual bug-a-boo, the old fear about the "militant homosexuals"! I used to joke about how us militant homosexuals were driving tanks down suburban streets (pink tanks for queeny men, black leather and metal studded tanks for butch lesbians and butch gay men...) actively "recruiting" innocent and pure heterosexual teens. Mwahahahahaha!
Now there's a Pride Day parade I'd love to see! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
RE: Gwai's comment: "Still is. I've heard people say that if we let teh gayz adopt, they will teach innocent children to be gay too."
Ah, yes, that heterosexual bug-a-boo, the old fear about the "militant homosexuals"! I used to joke about how us militant homosexuals were driving tanks down suburban streets (pink tanks for queeny men, black leather and metal studded tanks for butch lesbians and butch gay men...) actively "recruiting" innocent and pure heterosexual teens. Mwahahahahaha!
Could I have a girly sparkly one for a femme lesbian please?
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
So apparently changing 'queer' to 'gay' resolved the issue and everyone's happy.
Still wondering why it had to come to this though.
Seems quite sensible to me. It seems that [eople think that being called "gay" is not as much of an insult as being called "queer".
But that's not to say that "gay" is never used as an insult at all. It's not just about how gay people feel about being called "gay" - it's also about how straight people feel about being called gay too. For a straight person, being called "homosexual" may be factually wrong - but it's generally not considered insulting - and even if it is, it's not deemed as insulting as being called "gay".
But being called "gay", in turn, is nowhere near as insulting as being called "queer". Yet even so, being called "queer" is not considered anywhere near as insulting as being called "shirt-lifter" or "fudge-packer".
The point is, there's a spectrum of insult - and it's all just a question of where you draw the line. Some people might think that "gay" is okay but "queer" is pushing it too far - whereas others might think that "queer" is okay but "fudge-packer" is pushing it too far.
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
This is the bit I find bitterly hilarious. The head teacher teaches the kids in her school that 'queer' is an unacceptable word to use as an insult. So she cannot possibly allow the word to be used--not as an insult but as a reclaimed personal identification--by a character on the stage. However she is happy to have the show go on if the word 'queer' is replaced by the word 'gay' (with suitable changes in the rhyme scheme). Does she teach her pupils that 'gay' is an unacceptable word to use as an insult? Bet you anything that she doesn't, largely because she knows it would be futile: on every playground up and down the land 'gay' is the insult of choice. It is used to mean 'stupid,' 'embarrassing,' 'lame,' and the like.
Yes - but the difference is, the word "gay" is much more well-established as a non-insulting identifier for gay people than the word "queer".
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
So apparently changing 'queer' to 'gay' resolved the issue and everyone's happy.
Still wondering why it had to come to this though.
Seems quite sensible to me. It seems that [eople think that being called "gay" is not as much of an insult as being called "queer".
Yeah, I get that, but my point was not on the differences between those two words it was that if the matter was that easily resolved why it hadn't happened sooner.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think the author/writer response is the right one: not going to change it, and offering education/discussion. I do suspect that the kiddies have heard worse words than pee-pee and queer.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophicleide16
Shipmate
# 16344
|
Posted
It's a bit of a quagmire at times deciding what's best for the education of children regarding sexual ethics.
A few points always stick in my mind. One is that most objections to teaching kids anything about homosexuals is an underlying fear that it will somehow influence them or cause some change in their own sexuality. This can sometimes manifest itself in a terribly pious religious objection on grounds of whatever it is they say (I've always stopped listening by then). Some would say that it's just a projection of personal insecurities onto children, which I find a quite reasonable explanation.
When kids grow up in an environment which tolerate homosexuals as perfectly normal and gives a well balanced education on personal matters like that, this reduces the us/them attitudes you set up in explaining differences negatively and decreases propensity for homophobia.
Posts: 79 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Liopleurodon: quote:
Yeah, it was me. Having looked over my post it probably did look like I was trying to explain to you, personally, what you should do with your own kid. Sorry about that. That's not what I meant. I was simply trying to stress that this is a different issue from explaining sex.
Thanks - apology accepted. And apologies from me to Orfeo, unjustly accused in the heat of the moment.
It does sound to me (having heard a bit more about it) as if there were faults on both sides. The problem as I see it from the school's point of view is that some of the children really would have been too young to understand the distinction between calling someone else queer (which is almost always intended as an insult, if you yourself are straight) and calling yourself queer (in an ironic, out-and-proud-of-it way). And the ones who were old enough to understand the difference would also be old enough to pretend they didn't so they could take the piss out of their teachers (But miss, they SAID it on stage so it must be OK...).
Setting aside the gay/queer/homosexual/Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name issue for a moment, what does everyone think about this guy? ISTM that it's the same issue - what kind of language is appropriate when interacting with children? The answer may vary depending on how old they are and whether you are (a) another child (b) their teacher (c) their parent (d) the vicar...?
Personally I think the man's a prat. But I don't like his books so I may be biased.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophicleide16
Shipmate
# 16344
|
Posted
Well there's a difference between understanding the various nuances associated with words such as "queer" and using language which is just vulgar- and the man in that BBC report was the latter.
Posts: 79 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Of course Taylor himself would argue that the language he used was not considered to be vulgar by the 12-year-olds he was talking to (since they used worse themselves).
I think he's wrong anyway, because the fact that someone uses a given word themselves does not always mean that they think it's appropriate for YOU to use it when speaking to THEM. And this does lead back to the issue of the OP, because 'queer' is not yet reclaimed for general use and Lee Hall is being either naive or disingenuous in claiming that it is synonymous with 'gay'. It may refer to the same concept, but the accompanying baggage is completely different.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophicleide16
Shipmate
# 16344
|
Posted
Yes the target audience of such a presentation as he gave should be bourne in mind which he failed to do.
Posts: 79 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
It's a bit late I know, but just noticed this from Birdie: quote:
it appears from the article that the children had no involvement in the scenes where the offending lines were spoken/sung. Which does make it all a bit odd.
That's the part I found easiest to understand - if you're in a production you'll naturally want to watch the scenes you aren't in being rehearsed.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
