Words, words, words

[antiochian]

Yesterday, I gave my English colloquium presentation. As sexuality and faith was a major topic in my portfolio, that's what I presented on. The English faculty asked me some interesting questions, such as if I could write an epistle to St. Paul (supposed author of the NT clobber verses), what would I write? I was feeling quite confident, and am overall happy with my performance.

I received feedback today from my advisor. A couple professors apparently disliked my use of the terms "homophobia" and "heterocentrism." They called it equivocation. I looked up that big, fancy term, and here's what I got. Equivocation is the using of misleading and emotionally charged terms or words.

Are words like "homophobia" etc. emotionally charged? You bet! Misleading? I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. I suspect a few Christian faculty members want to have their cake and eat it too... they want to be able to say that we are living in sin and are going to burn, but not want to be considered bigots. If someone discriminates against women, that's sexism. If a straight person discriminates against gays, that's homophobia... Is it really so difficult to grasp?

Am I missing something here? What do you think?

[keltic63]

people don't like to be called on their stuff, especially when the person speaking (yourself) has them by the cajones!

I'm experiencing the same thing at my job right now. a co-worker who has not been well-liked, nor well-treated by the rest of the staff, was just given 2 weeks to live. this happened suddenly and has caught us all by surprise. Those who have made her life miserable for the past 2 years are now the ones who are literally beating a path to her door to visit her as she dies.

I posted some lyrics on my FB page:

Everybody loves you when you're dead
And everyone is suddenly your dearest friend
Nobody talks no dirt about you
But life it just goes on above your head
When you're dead

just an oblique reference to what I've been observing, but it caught the attention of one of those women who is guilty. Tongues are wagging! they don't want that to be pointed out. It's all for show, and these women want everyone to see that they are sooooo goood for going to visit this dying woman.

of course, I never made reference to the guilty parties, they simply found some meaning in the lyrics that I posted

I'd say the same is happening for your professors. the Christians often do what they accuse you of, inserting "homosexual" for "gay" and "lifestyle" for "orientation." The reduce orientation to an action or behavior, and try to come off as opposing sin instead of appearing to be a bigot.

[Daniel]

What other terms did your professors suggest instead? None I bet. Sounds like they are doing exactly what your observe them doing: having their cake and eating it too.

You didn't mislead them. You gave them the opportunity to examine their assumptions, and they didn't like it one bit.

[antiochian]

Thank you both for confirming what I felt--no alternative terms were suggested, and I stand by my choice to call a spade a spade.

Incidentally, the other major criticism of my presentation was that I was sermonizing. English profs are hard to please, much like cranky 5-year-olds. Wish y'all could have been there. The critics who mattered most, my parents and a dear lesbian friend whom I invited, said I did great.

I'm really thinking about trying to get my independent project published. It's called "The Lessons of Laramie: A Letter to Matthew Shepard." My advisor loved it. We shall see.

[scott snedeker]

I think that your professors have been awakened to their own feelings and biases. This made them uncomfortable.

While I agree that homophobia is emotionally charged and reactionary, I feel that heterocentric is not. Heterocentric is neutral in it's flavor. So if a person feels emotionaly charged by this term I feel that it reveals the underlying homophobic undertones the professor who is consciously or unconsciously adding transferrence into his scholastic criticism.

As a counter criticism you could invite them to search within themselves with curiosity for the possiblity that transferrence did color their criticism as an exercise in intellectual insight.

[Gennee]

Homophobia and Heterocentrism are pretty self explanatory to me. Many educated people try to exonerate themselves from being called bigots and yet their words or actions may demonstrate otherwise. Being able to defend yourself with facts goes a long way toward not being used as a pawn.

Gennee

[PROVISM09]

The most important trip you may take in life... is meeting people half way.



I just saw this and thought it was SO worth sharing

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by PROVISM09

The most important trip you may take in life... is meeting people half way.



I just saw this and thought it was SO worth sharing

But in terms of homophobia and heterocentrism and this discussion, what are you suggesting?

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

I think that your professors have been awakened to their own feelings and biases. This made them uncomfortable.

While I agree that homophobia is emotionally charged and reactionary, I feel that heterocentric is not. Heterocentric is neutral in it's flavor. So if a person feels emotionaly charged by this term I feel that it reveals the underlying homophobic undertones the professor who is consciously or unconsciously adding transferrence into his scholastic criticism.

As a counter criticism you could invite them to search within themselves with curiosity for the possiblity that transferrence did color their criticism as an exercise in intellectual insight.

Bishop Robinson said once that he prefers not to use the word 'homophobia' because it's a conversation stopper. The person you're talking to, rightly or wrongly, just shuts down. He prefers the word 'heterosexism', which is probably more correct anyway, though I can't imagine that word being mainstreamed. He said (here's the clip; having a blog to put things in comes in handy sometimes!) that using 'heterosexist' "points to where the responsibility lies. It lies with the oppressors, not with the oppressed, to dismantle the system that benefits them."

I don't understand the objective problem with the word 'heterocentrism', though. It's rarely enough used that I think it would probably be best if you defined it on first use, but it's a recognized phenomenon. And yeah, if they didn't offer any alternate word or tack, I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that they may have been uncomfortable with the topic in general rather than the term in specific.

My current favorite is 'heteronormative'. I'm dying to fit that into a conversation.

* * *

Alternately, it could be that that isn't what they meant by 'equivocation'. As a logical fallacy, equivocation could be meant as a term that has more than one meaning.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

'heterosexist' "points to where the responsibility lies. It lies with the oppressors, not with the oppressed, to dismantle the system that benefits them."

I don't understand the objective problem with the word 'heterocentrism', though. It's rarely enough used that I think it would probably be best if you defined it on first use, but it's a recognized phenomenon. And yeah, if they didn't offer any alternate word or tack, I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that they may have been uncomfortable with the topic in general rather than the term in specific.

My current favorite is 'heteronormative'. I'm dying to fit that into a conversation.

* * *

Alternately, it could be that that isn't what they meant by 'equivocation'. As a logical fallacy, equivocation could be meant as a term that has more than one meaning.

I like the discourse of these terms Great post, Matt!

Homophobia to me is indeed pointing a finger and frankly stigmatizing. It feels like labeling someone a "psychopath." I feel that though it is gratifying retaliation to a gay person who has been trespassed by oppression, it is counter-productive as it polarizes the oppressor further away from compassion and understanding. It is reacting to the violence of oppression with violence of derisive stigma

Heterosexism has a pro-gay biased political tone to it.

Heterocentric feels as neutral as I have read yet in this thread. I think his is the best term to use. It speaks of origin of unawareness of unintentional gay oppression without accusing someone of malice. I would say that this term provokes the least equivocation.

Heteronormism has a tone of validating oppression of Gays as justified. Though I really like using it in this discourse, I find it threatening. It provokes the challenge: "prove that Levitical moral law oppressing gays is wrong"

These are great tools! And an excellent exercise in Buddhist Right speech and Ruiz's first Agreement of The four Agreements (Be impeccable with your word)

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

Homophobia to me is indeed pointing a finger and frankly stigmatizing. It feels like labeling someone a "psychopath." I feel that though it is gratifying retaliation to a gay person who has been trespassed by oppression, it is counter-productive as it polarizes the oppressor further away from compassion and understanding. I

Fingerpointing? I see your point (I could not resist! ), but cannot help but turn the matter around and contemplate using the word heterophobia.

Both homophobia and heterophobia are about being fearful, no? In that sense, it's not about the innate attributes of a person, but rather, what the person is feeling/thinking. Is describing this labeling? And is labeling a bad thing? I guess it would depend on who is doing the labeling.

Its very hard to change something one isn't aware of.

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Fingerpointing? I see your point (I could not resist! ), but cannot help but turn the matter around and contemplate using the word heterophobia.


Its very hard to change something one isn't aware of.

"Old men like me don't bother with making points. There's no point" --Counselor Harmon
"Is that why there are no young men on the counsel?" --Neo
"Good point." --Counselor Harmon

The above movie dialogue is what this discussion brought to my mind. I'm wondering if this all isn't just debating semantics? Then again, I could be wrong.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Fingerpointing? I see your point (I could not resist! ), but cannot help but turn the matter around and contemplate using the word heterophobia.

Both homophobia and heterophobia are about being fearful, no? In that sense, it's not about the innate attributes of a person, but rather, what the person is feeling/thinking. Is describing this labeling? And is labeling a bad thing? I guess it would depend on who is doing the labeling.

Its very hard to change something one isn't aware of.

Phobias by clinical definition are irrational fears or irrational hatred. It is a very strong implication to label an individual with a phobia. Phobias definitely exist. Someone with arachnophobia may jump out of the window of a burning building rather than walk through a safe doorway with a spider sitting on the door handle.

clear examples of Homophobia would be members of the westboro Baptist Church. These folks meet all medical definitions of antisocial or psychopathic personality. The reason they are not imprisoned is that they are too skilled at manipulation to lose in criminal prosecution.

It might be a stretch to call a "love the sinner hate the sin" proponent homophobic, but definitely could be defendably considered Heterosexist a heteronormalist. I strongly suspect Antiochian's professors fall into this category and indeed did taint their scholastic criticism with transferrence.

As far as this being a debate of semantics..... I agree it is very much semantics! But you say that like it is not valuable! labelling is relative. and with reference to a standard. Whether it is a clinical standard, Legal standard, Scholastic standard.

For me presently I am reconciling thoughts, feelings words actions with the eight-fold path of the Dharma with honed focus on nonviolence. So far this is dissipating inner pain and fear and suffering with delicious efficacy for me. So exercises in semantics like this have great value to me.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

It might be a stretch to call a "love the sinner hate the sin" proponent homophobic, but definitely could be defendably considered Heterosexist a heteronormalist. I strongly suspect Antiochian's professors fall into this category and indeed did taint their scholastic criticism with transferrence.

As far as this being a debate of semantics..... I agree it is very much semantics! But you say that like it is not valuable! labelling is relative. and with reference to a standard.

That's my feeling anyway. How we use words influences how we see ourselves (self-dialogue) as well as others.

Know what? After years of Pentacostalism, I believe that the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin" is homophobic. Proponents of it claim that it is used in love. However, those being bludgeoned with it cannot agree. It's nice to think one is doing something wonderful for another person, when in fact, one is doing the exact opposite.

Just for conversation sake: is there anything rational about homophobia?

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's my feeling anyway. How we use words influences how we see ourselves (self-dialogue) as well as others.

Know what? After years of Pentacostalism, I believe that the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin" is homophobic. Proponents of it claim that it is used in love. However, those being bludgeoned with it cannot agree. It's nice to think one is doing something wonderful for another person, when in fact, one is doing the exact opposite.

Just for conversation sake: is there anything rational about homophobia?

Probably not. fear is not rational. Holding on to hate can be rationalized but where does the hate come from??.....pain and fear

I'm confident that the largest fraction of people suffering from violence of homophbia have same gender sexxxxual attraction to the same gender and are fearful of discovery and abandonement to the point of terror, anger hatred of self and those who reflect what they hate in themselves.


I was one of those and still have trouble forgiving myself for what I said at age forteen to another guy in Gym class who was flirting with me

(Back when the world was still black and white, you can tell by the photos)

To cultivate homophobia is to brew violence wihin and without reinforcing the suffering with negative grudge gratification.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

I'm confident that the largest fraction of people suffering from violence of homophbia have same gender sexxxxual attraction to the same gender and are fearful of discovery and abandonement to the point of terror, anger hatred of self and those who reflect what they hate in themselves.

I was one of those and still have trouble forgiving myself for what I said at age forteen to another guy in Gym class who was flirting with me

This makes a hell (and it is hell, isn't it?) of a lot of sense! My own fear led me to shut down all awareness of attraction to other men for over a decade. It came busting out when I was 28. Does that kind of self-oppression take its toll? Yep. It sure does. You don't get out of that kind of thing overnight. It took years. And hello! This affects relationships!

So- whether one acts out against one's self or another- I- like you- recognize and believe (and isn't that what Soulforce is all about?) that compassion is the only answer. Nothing less than that will do.

Take heart Scotty. You've more than made up for past actions.

[BrianB]

Forgive me, Scotty. You are having a serious discussion and I interject some pop philosophy for humor's sake. Now I'll sit back and try to learn something from what you all are saying.

BTW, you're not the only one that deals with self-hatred. I was have sex with an older boy when I was twelve. However, when the other boys showed up later to torment him I joined right in. It was out of fear of being discovered that I did it. Years later I've tried to find him to beg forgiveness but I can't locate him.