(no subject)

[novapsyche]

I'm as obsessed about the Tim Hardaway controversy as I was the one involving Michael Richards. In fact, I may be more so, because I can't understand how someone who ostensibly has been the object of oppression and/or discrimination can turn around and utilize the same tools of hatred on someone else.

Furor Over Hardaway's 'I Hate Gays' Comment: What Our Readers Said

Tim Hardaway Tells Us What He Thinks -- Unfortunately

The aftermath of Hardaway's hate

Keep That Hard-On Away From Hardaway

Hardaway very slow getting back on defense after airball

The big question is how each of us handles the gay issue -- a well-written article

Putting homophobes in closet -- more good food for thought

Comments

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Hey, he has a point.

I don't share his views, but the structure and culture of sports is, like the military, predicated on heterosexuality. No privacy, much physical intimacy, presumed sexual heterogeneity.

The introduction of open homosexuality into that environment is something that would be difficult for many to deal with.

There are structural reasons for his response. They won't be dealt with, though- everyone will be rushing to confirm him as a scapegoat. Which is fine, on one level- social disincentives at work. At another level, though, it will just force honesty back underground, while distracting us from the need for structural change.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

No, an objective point would be, "In the NBA, there are many players who would feel uncomfortable with knowing if a player is homosexual." Not "I hate gay people" and saying they shouldn't be "in the world or the United States." One is a statement of fact (unfortunately); the other is a statement of hate.

Since his remarks, do you think the issue has gone underground or has gotten more light?

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

(1) You start your reply with "No". What- if anything- in your reply contradicts what I have said?

(2) I have seen much discourse, but the vast majority focuses on the individual; almost none focuses on the structure in which he operated.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with you that he has a point, or rather that what he said is the same as your point.

I've read several articles that in fact do talk about the culture of pro sports and how that keeps active gay players in the closet. Would you like me to dig up more reading material?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

What, exactly, do you see as his point? I don't see a point. Telling the world how you feel is not the same as making an argument.

He said he wouldn't want to be on the same team as a gay player--he went so far as to say he would request that player be traded (instead of, say, requesting that he himself be traded). He admitted he was homophobic. How, exactly, do those statements comprise an argument?

He said he wouldn't want to be in the same locker room as a gay player. Well, statistics show that he already shared a locker room with at least one gay player. The fact that one of his obvious worst fears--that someone might hit on him--never came to pass should invalidate his concern. Yet he clings to this idea that someone would make a pass at him. This is, as one of the journalists I referenced mentioned, one of the ugliest stereotypes of homosexuality, that someone who is homosexual is predatory. Voicing a fear is not the same as making an argument. A fear, especially an unsubstantied one, is not a point. It's ignorance dressed up like an opinion.

Hardaway didn't say anything about the culture of the NBA, or how masculinity is viewed in the wider culture. He said nothing so erudite. He said, "I hate [this group]," which could easily have been blacks or Jews or women.

I'm not saying he doesn't have freedom of speech. But he should have thought about how he was using his platform of celebrity, and I am personally glad that he is feeling repercussions of his speech. He bears responsibility for what he says, and considering the fact that Amaechi has gotten much more negative email since Hardaway's radio interview shows that Hardaway's words influenced others to voice their own feelings of hatred.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

You keep refuting points that I am not making, while re-asserting points that I made in my initial comment.

What, exactly, do you think that I am saying?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Tell me, in plain words, what his point is. I didn't see a point in any of his words.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

(1) I still do think that he has a point. I just amplified and organised one aspect of what he said. I don't claim that that was the main thing he said, or that it justifies anything else he said.
I said that he had a- one- point.

(2) I don't think that what he said is the same as my point. Of note, I don't dislike homosexual people, and don't identify with an anti-intellectual, homophobic sports subculture.

(3) I'd be quite interested in articles treating with the issues of pro sports culture. However, their existence does not refute my point that sharp focus on a single problem personality tends to work against, rather than towards, necessary cultural and structural reform.

I've seen articles that treat with issues of pro sports culture as well; most of them really just respout obvious superficialities "Oh, sports is too macho and homophobic". Whoopty-doo. Tell us something we didn't know.


With specific reference to locker-room discomforts:
Should straight men be willing to accept gay men from male bathrooms/changing rooms?
Should women be willing to accept gay men from female bathrooms/changing rooms?
Should men be willing to accept gay women male bathrooms/ changing rooms?

I don't accept the PC twaddle that "gay people are not predators". That is escapist PC strawman-reactionary thinking in that it evades the issue. Gay people are not "predators"; neither are they "safe"; gay people are just people. Sure, gay people overall are not predators, but who cares? My not being a predator doesn't get me into the female bathroom at Macy's. For most people, privacy requirements go up when potential sexual mates are involved, whether or not predation is an issue. Heterogeneity demands, to me, a rethinking of our conventional arrangements, a rethinking that many are not willing to face. Absent such rethinking, people are going to be understandably uncomfortable- and that discomfort will fuel and amplify bigotry.

I strongly believe that even as we reject bigotry, we must be willing to pick at real issues that may be feeding it, and to examine them in a way that is fair- even generous- to all involved.

Including the bigots.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

Bigots are irrational, they don't play fair, they don't deserve fairness.

Has this arguement already degenerated into "who uses the bathroom with who"? If that's the case, novapsyche, just give it up. There's no arguement left, only shit.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

The idea that any individual "doesn't deserve fairness" is one that guarantees failure.

Fairness is not earned.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

Tim Hardaway just cost himself a ton of money by saying this. I don't know what sort of endorsement deals he may or may not have had, but now he has none, and no prospects for any, either. No one - except maybe some fundamentalist group - is going to go near him. You have to wonder about his motivation.

Meanwhile, it's continually amazing how fearful men can be regarding gay men. It's as though they figure they will be attacked ... so what does this say about themselves, and whether or not they should be left alone with women? And, gee, now they know what it feels like to be the object of unwanted sexual attention.... They need to get over it.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

He was clearly channeling his inner idiot.

Do we all need to get over our fears of exposure to people we don't want looking at us sexually in our locker rooms?

Or does that dismissive reply only apply to homophobic men?

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

"Do we all need to get over our fears of exposure to people we don't want looking at us sexually in our locker rooms?

"Or does that dismissive reply only apply to homophobic men?"

It applies to anyone who goes into a public locker room of any type.

I guess you were never an attractive woman in a locker room. I found out early (junior high) that a few of my female classmates were interested in watching me get dressed. I had two options: get over it, or not go in the locker room, because they *were* going to watch. It was the same thing when going to the beach. One has to either enjoy the attention, or at least not mind it, or avoid the situation. I decided that I didn't want to live in a cave, so I had to get used to the idea that people that I was not attracted to, were nevertheless going to be attracted to me; as long as they kept their hands to themselves, I should take the attention as a compliment.

Tim Hardaway should get to the same mental space.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

You can bet that when Snickers came up with its "gay'' candy bar commercial for the Super Bowl, they were sure they had a winner. Two grubby mechanics chow down on the same Snickers bar, chomp toward the middle (apparently failing to notice the guy attached to the other end of the bar), and their lips touch.

Oh my God the hilarity! Get it? Their lips touch! Two men? So they wonder if they might be -- snort, snicker -- gay, right? So they have to do something masculine, so they pull out their chest hair. Get it?
...
Snickers never thought that it would offend anyone. Isn't that how everyone feels?

Am I the only one that thought the homophobia/machismo of the two guys was the butt of the joke? I was expecting protests to that commercial, but I expected them from The American Family Association, not GLAAD.