|
"Marriage" except in a couple of rare places on earth, is understood to
be that which is sanctioned by the State and/or a religious institution.
Therefor, the DRU site posting clearly refers to that kind of
"marriage"...
You cannot admit that it was a joke, and then -- (convincingly) deny
knowing it's a homophobic joke.
Erase the homophobia, and there is no other possible way for it to be
funny, which the exclamation point clearly indicates that it is supposed
to be.
Most gay-hating jokes I have heard over the years, were based on the
idea that the very existence of homosexuality is absurd; if not the most
shocking surprise possible. This little homophobic joke Shelly reported,
absolutely, CLEARLY fits that anti-gay "humor" template.
For example, on "Showtime At The Apollo" a USA television show (seen
elsewhere?), the comedian on stage points to 2 men sitting next to each
other in the balcony (who could be gay, but there is no particular
indication that this might be so), and makes a spontaneous smirking
homophobic remark assuming them to be gay, and that remark alone gets
the audience roaring with laughter. No "punch line" required. The joke
is not about how a gay person did something funny, stupid, absurd,
stereotypical, etc. (This is a taped show, so the director and
producers made a decision to leave that bigotted "joke" in the tape,
too.) For another example, the series of anti-gay jokes presented on
stage as entertainment, at a disabled theatre conference in Berkeley, a
few years
ago.
For some minorities, the mere fact that we exist at all, is considered
to be an absurdity... hence, nothing else is needed to create a joke.
Merely announce our existance at the end of a story, or even hint at it,
and Voila!! you have written a "joke" that heterosexists will find
funny.
The newest homophobic joke format, is to briefly dangle in front of the
audience something that sounds like the speaker (or someone else) might
be, or is gay.... and then quickly yank it back, and reassure the folks
that "Only kidding" you're not gay. But also flaunting that you're
daring or secure enough in how hetero you're perceived to be, enough to
let others think you might be gay, for just a few daring seconds.
If that university web site's writer -- could take for granted that
every reader knows (if it is so) that it's a big happy family of all
sexual orientations at that university office .... then in a "safe"
context like that, it might not read as homophobic. Like in a personal
conversation in that office. But of course the writer can make NO such
assumptions about the many distant readers of a web site knowing any
such thing, and therefor a responsible writer would assume that a
"joke" like that would be understood (by hetero & gay readers both) as
homophobic.
Aside: Heterosexists only say that something was a "joke" if it was
worse. Actual anti-gay jokes are typically denied. Anti-gay hate
speech / harassment is typically denied, even when absolutely
undeniable, by the last-ditch fallback statement of "I didn't mean it,
it was only a joke." Therefor, if you want to know what a particular
heterosexist person looks like / sounds like when s/he is lying, then
listen and / or watch carefullly when they say about some anti-gay
behavior "I didn't mean it, it was only a joke."
==
Of course we all appreciate that the intersection of Disability Studies
and LGBT Studies is a valid area. Right.
1-- A while back I met a DS scholar and was offered a mentoring
relationship. In follow-up E-mails, I sent a draft of an essay written
on the potential intersection of the 2 fields; submitted for comment.
Which functioned as my "coming out" to this mentor. The result was --
mentoring arrangement cancelled. I later heard that this person was not
homophobic on a personal level to some; so that suggests that the
homophobia was specific to an exclusionary concept of DS, activated by
my daring to publish an essay looking at how DS might overlap with LGBT
studies. Was I perceived as "dirtying" DS with that essay?
2-- A year ago I posted to this site an announcement of a lecture I gave
at New York University on research into the incidence & status of --
barriers to equal / independent access, in the public spaces in which
lesbians & gay men gather, in New York City.
The total Leeds List response: I recall no on-list discussion, I got
one private note of interest.... and one other hostile note telling me
in a huff, that such a posting was "INAPPROPRIATE" for the disability
research list.
Today, I will not embarrass the writer of that note that said it was
"inappropriate", since (in the current 'Homophobia..." thread) s/he is
now professing to be Mr./Ms. Cutting Edge on this very same question.
Maybe s/he really did learn something in the past year. Wonders never
cease.
Seems it's not uncomon to back-date one's enlightenment, on an issue.
Nobody wants to admit "Yeah, I finaly got on the right side of that
issue, last week."
==
With current events like..... an openly gay student (with cerebral
palsy) Eric Plunkett being brutally murdered on campus at Gallaudet
University in September (plus -- some heterosexual students openly
celebrating & laughing at the murder on campus, and other gay students
there receiving threats even in public).... and current events like a
high government official in one country making in public the Nazi-like
statement that all lesbians and gay men "must be eliminated"..... and a
recent refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an A.D.A. case in which
a health insurance company said they could single out policy-holders
with AIDS for severe economic discrimination (the "refusal to hear",
allowed the bad Lower Court decision to stand, as case law) ....
.... frankly, we got "bigger fish to fry".... than a small joke.
--
But thank you, Shelley, for bringing that everyday anti-gay "joke" to
our attention, in spite of the risk of being bashed by people who still
"don't get it", and in a few cases seem to be making a mighty
pseudo-intellectual effort to "not get it".
Jim
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
