The ‘G’ Word
So I was sitting at my desk after school today, observing a discussion going on behind me. One student had earlier discouraged another from using “gay” in a negative sense (e.g., “This homework assignment is so gay”). My advisor (teacher) was praising the discouraging student for his actions. This fueled the larger discussion on the subject.
So, really, is this a problem? I don’t think so. This seems an unlikely stance, as I’m often one accused of being too politically correct, but, really, let’s keep our eyes on the prize. Some seventh-grader saying that his parents are “gay” because he was grounded is not the real problem here. Besides, there is no negative historical connotation with the word “gay.” Unlike “nigger,” the use of “gay” as a derogatory term hasn’t spread much past Junior Highs.
That aside, “nigger” has its chinches, too. It really shouldn’t be an offensive term anymore. I’m not going to say that there is no discrimination in today’s world, but I’ve yet to meet an American who grew up in slavery — or in a culture where “nigger” would be commonplace. Again, a disclaimer, I don’t want people to go out and start saying it, but really, it should have no more effect than making the person speaking it look like a jerk.
Generally speaking, the student who refers to a homework assignment as “gay” probably means nothing by it. And, again, let’s try to be less focused on what people say, and more on what they do. That’s How it Happens.
At 08:40 on Jan.31 ’06, Matt Nienow said:
Think on this: What people do is quite possibly more important than what they say. People do, however, commit hate crimes. People do discriminate, judge, threaten, and belittle homosexuals and other minorities. People (and our government) do treat homosexuals and other minorities as second class citizens. What people say is directly related to this lack of tolerance.
If gay people were held in high standing, if they were treated as equals, if they were allowed to marry, if they were allowed the freedom from worrying about their own physical safety, this might not be an issue. This background combined with the use (by anyone – seventh grader or adult) of ‘gay’ as negative slang is offensive and, yes, perpetuates the discrimination of homosexuals. Whether or not the people using this term intend it only as a slight blow to less desirable situations, the word gay as negative adj. is directly related to the noun gay and our cultural understanding and treatment of that group of people. Some words shouldn’t hold so much power, but they do because of how people act.
#
At 09:12 on Jan.31 ’06, Sean Hayford O'Leary said:
Exactly. I maintain that this is not the issue. Changing a societal attitude doesn’t happen overnight, and there’s no reason — at this point — to be concerned over “gay” as a negative term. In a perfect world, people wouldn’t say it. In twenty or thirty years when we hopefully grow out of this Christian Right phase, then we can complain about the little things.
It seems comparable to complaining that black people can’t use “white” drinking fountains in the days of slavery.
#
At 11:27 on Jan.31 ’06, Matt Nienow said:
Pardon me for saying so, but I believe that if something is considered wrong, I should do all I can to change the situation. The amount of time it takes for change to occur is irrelevant.
The author of the blog admits that, “in a perfect world, people wouldn’t say it.” The fact that the world is not now ( and may never be) perfect, should not be a deterrent to making it better.
If people hadn’t complained about sexim or racism, “little things” like different drinking fountains for blacks and whites might still be in use. Little things are ussually indicators of larger issues.
#
At 14:31 on Jan.31 ’06, Sean Hayford O'Leary said:
Very passively said. And hardly an admission on the part of “the author of the blog.”
The author of the blog does admit, though, that it doesn’t need to be a perfect world for said change to happen, it does need to be a different world. Essentially, it seems a non-issue to the author of the blog. He maintains that bigger changes need to occur first, and that someone using the term “gay” as a negative attitude is just not the problem.
Maybe it’s the route to the real solution, but the author of the blog doesn’t think so.
#
At 03:44 on Jan.10 ’07, Michael B said:
Only someone with no interaction with black America would ever say that nigger has lost its power. Drinking fountains in the days of slavery? This analogy makes no sense. Implying that anything less than slavery is not racism? Sad.
Enjoy your little space in cultural la-la land. The next time you have a conversation with someone who’s seen more than Minnesota or Norway, someone who might be of color and therefore offended by a word for good reason, be prepped to be quiet and be humble.
#
At 10:20 on Jan.10 ’07, Sean Hayford O'Leary said:
Michael,
Your comment is odd. Especially coming from a person who left neither a valid e-mail address nor even a last name.
The analogy to which you refer — “[objection to use of the word ‘gay’ as a negative adjective] seems comparable to complaining that black people can’t use ‘white’ drinking fountains in the days of slavery” — has absolutely nothing to do with race. I am saying that insofar as blacks experienced far greater oppression through slavery than through far more minor things like segregated drinking fountains, gays are receiving far greater oppression through things such as laws banning them from getting married than some 11 year old saying that his mom is “so gay” for grounding him.
The implication that anything less than slavery is not racism is sad but it’s also non-existent. Would you like to quote something specific?
My further comments on the word “nigger” are admittedly somewhat circular. That is to say, something cannot be made culturally acceptable under the justification that it is not culturally acceptable. Though bear in mind that if, for example, our president called a black man a “nigger,” there would be vast outrage against the statement against the president. Perhaps a small percentage of would-be racial supremacists would approve, but as a whole we don’t tolerate it. You are right that the further use of the word is not acceptable, but eventually its stigma must be overcome.
Lastly, though I’m sure Ohio is as culturally advanced a land as the movies would have us believe, the conversation in which you joined was between one native Minnesotan and another who has lived in the state for years. Who doesn’t understand whose culture here?
#