Educating Others Tactfully

[Zombie]

I think there is a difference between homophobia and hostility to people who do not meet stereotypical gender norms...

 

All I would say is the perspective changes somewhat when you're on the receiving end. Homophobia encompasses a wide spectrum of behaviours - Wiki says it covers "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality - obviously with violence at one end, but also ranging to, say, being made to feel unwelcome, which for some, and especially in some circumstances, can be very damaging to the person. The Merriam-Webster definition is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

 

 

 

 

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Zombie

[Graeme]

That makes more sense... but then the sentence becomes "These kids aren't homophobes, yet, they are just anti-effeminate".

 

But this is inherently contradictory. Not all homosexuals are macho and butch, many are and always have been effeminate. To claim that prejudice and / or discrimination is not homophobic when it is only directed at effeminate gays is outrageous.

What about the effeminate straights?

 

I have a big problem with the constant mixing up of effeminate and homosexuality. There is a relationship between the two because a significant percentage of effeminate guys are gay, but it is by no means 100%. Indeed, at the age of fourteen, a guy can be perceived as being effeminate simply because he's not macho -- too many kids at that age have a dichotomy view of the world and don't understand that there's a spectrum with lots of shades of grey in between.

 

I find the sentence "These kids aren't homophobes, yet, they are just anti-effeminate" perfectly fine. The "yet" is important. At that age, the kids don't understand the difference between the two and it's easy for them to conflate them. This can be seen by how many schoolboy taunts relate to effeminate behaviour: being called a 'sissy', 'weak', 'girly', 'gay'....

 

When viewed from that perspective, you can see that the term 'gay' in schoolyard abuse is being used to mean 'effeminate', not 'homosexual'. If this isn't corrected, the young boy will grow up to be a man who is a homophobe, because they maintain their anti-effeminate stance and incorrectly equate homosexuality with effeminacy. But at the age of fourteen, it's anti-effeminate, not anti-homosexual.

[Zombie]

I find the sentence "These kids aren't homophobes, yet, they are just anti-effeminate" perfectly fine.

 

Well I'm sorry, Graeme but I don't find it "perfectly fine" - because we all know what "anti-effeminate" translates to in the playground. Of course you are right that effeminacy does not = homosexuality. We know that. But the kids in the playground don't. And when the poor kid is being bullied by his fellow pupils his life will be made just as miserable whether he is gay, straight, or any other colour.

[Irritable1]

I agree that this is all so much hair-splitting when you're on the receiving end of exclusion, harassment or worse. I think the how you feel vs how you act arguments from the anti-gay side are unspeakably cruel for a lot of reasons, but this is one way to turn them around: I don't care what your motivations are for feeling like being a jerk, as long as you can behave normally around other people.

 

Edit:

 

 

But the kids in the playground don't.

 

I'm really struggling with my response here because I heard something that astonished me recently about some "kids in the playground" I thought I'd understood years ago. But it's not my story to tell. I agree, again, that focusing on male effeminacy or other non-gender-norm behavior can be and usually is a problem, but it's not always about an intent to bully. 

Edited July 23, 2014 by Irritable1

[Graeme]

Well I'm sorry, Graeme but I don't find it "perfectly fine" - because we all know what "anti-effeminate" translates to in the playground. Of course you are right that effeminacy does not = homosexuality. We know that. But the kids in the playground don't. And when the poor kid is being bullied by his fellow pupils his life will be made just as miserable whether he is gay, straight, or any other colour.

My apologies. I meant that it was perfectly fine (and probably accurate) as a statement as to what was happening. I didn't mean to imply that the behaviour was perfectly fine. If that's the way it came over, I unreservedly apologise -- that wasn't my intention.

[Graeme]

I agree that this is all so much hair-splitting when you're on the receiving end of exclusion, harassment or worse. I think the how you feel vs how you act arguments from the anti-gay side are unspeakably cruel for a lot of reasons, but this is one way to turn them around: I don't care what your motivations are for feeling like being a jerk, as long as you can behave normally around other people.

There's two issues here. I totally agree that when you're on the receiving end the distinctions don't matter. Bullying and harassment are bullying and harassment: totally unacceptable.

 

However, if you are try to correct behaviour, you need to understand the behaviour that needs correcting. It's why the 'homophobe' brush is too broad. As an example, people who are indifferent to homosexual behaviour with the belief that what happens behind closed doors is none of their business get rather upset by being called homophobes because they also believe that children are best raised by a mother and father. The solution is to identify their particular issue and address it with reasoned arguments, not tar them with a broad brush that insults them because it's not nuanced enough.

 

This gets back to the original post and how to educate others tactfully. The first step is to identify where they've gone wrong. It may be that they have the wrong definition of homosexuality. It maybe that they're incorrectly merging homosexuality and effeminacy. It maybe that they have a misguided view on how children should be raised when it comes to gender roles. All of these are examples of how someone could be perceived as a 'homophobe', but the way to address each of these is different. There's no one answer that fits all cases.

[Irritable1]

Graeme, what do you consider a behavior that could be corrected?

 

It seems to me that most people of goodwill just live their lives without being a nuisance to their neighbors, gay or straight. If they've already advanced to the point of interfering with gay families or trying to withhold hospital visits, that's not someone whose motivations I'm keen to examine.

 

Of course if we're talking about voting that's a whole different thing 

[Graeme]

Since we're talking about educating people, the most common behaviour that can be corrected is behaviour that derives from a perception of stereotypes. That is, "Well we all know..." behaviour. This sort of behaviour is being driven by abstracts, and can be corrected by concrete examples.

 

Let's take the three examples I've given in turn.

 

Homosexuality definition: Attraction or Actions

 

This is probably the toughest one to change because even if you convince them that their definition is incorrect, they can still point out that acting on sexual desires is a choice. Just because their next door neighbour is attractive, the heterosexual male typically does not act on that desire. The way to deal with this one is probably long term. You need to ask if they believe they could go celibate for the rest of their lives, and if they can't, ask them how they can believe that homosexuals are capable of do what they can't? Once they accept that point, it becomes a matter of pointing out how unfair it is to ask the homosexuals to do what they can't, and that as long as it doesn't impact on them (and how could it?), what harm is it if homosexuals do things that they are uncomfortable with?

 

Many of the arguments in this category seem to relate to 'seducing' young people in to a homosexual lifestyle. Once the change of definition has stuck with them, a lot of those arguments disappear. Homosexuals can't recruit young people because the attraction is not a choice. The objections to gay teachers, etc., then start to disappear.

 

Effeminate does not equal Homosexual

 

This should be addressed during the teenage years as part of a general education approach on accepting diversity in all its forms. That's racial, religious, gender, cultural, etc., diversity, as well as sexual orientation and transgender. Young boys are generally intolerant for reasons discussed earlier in this thread. But they're also capable of learning, and what they learn can carry forward into their adult lives. Being different does not make someone wrong. Once that's taught successfully, a lot of the issues in this area disappear.

 

Raising Children

 

This is probably the easiest one to address because it's so narrow. As a parent, I can appreciate that other parents can be concerned about children and how they're raised. Most parents are naturally conservative in this area as a consequence. Concrete examples are the best way to show that homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising children. Studies are fine for a generic argument, but that requires careful research because many studies are flawed. The key issue I've personally found is that there is ample evidence that children who are not raised by a mother and father have more issues than those who are...but that's because of the impact of divorce, not because of the gender of the parent raising the child. Once the impact of divorce is eliminated, most of the research I've found supports single-gender parents as being quite capable of raising children successfully. As I point out when this is being discussed, there are a lot of single parent families with great kids. How can it be damaging to have a second parent of the same gender? If anything, the second parent means that there's double the amount of time for the parents to spend with their children because while one parent is doing chores/shopping/working, the other one can be concentrating on the children.

 

I know I haven't explicitly addressed the question of what behaviour can be corrected, but that's because the question is too broad. What I've tried to do it give examples of behaviour that can be corrected through appropriate education. As long as it's done tactfully, as the original poster asked

[Zombie]

Just to return to your earlier post Graeme

 

people who are indifferent to homosexual behaviour with the belief that what happens behind closed doors is none of their business get rather upset by being called homophobes because they also believe that children are best raised by a mother and father.

 

I'd add that such people seriously need to be educated on the reality of life because they are seeing a fiction - the all-American family consisting of Mom + Pop + 2 perfect white kids, that were standard fodder in US commercials of the 1950s, when the truth is that by age 15 only 55% of British kids will still have their Mum and Dad in the family home.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223176/percentage_living_with_both_of_their_parents.pdf

[Graeme]

Absolutely correct Which is why I prefer to try to educate people rather than calling them homophobes for having a misinformed opinion.

[Zombie]

Fair enough - and once you've done that you can get Merriam-Webster to update their definition

[Bill W]

Education is fine and a noble effort.  Just don't forget the old adage.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. 

[W_L]

Zombie, I think I will call you "Mr. Chips", since you obviously have a love of English diction and an aversion to stream of consciousness

 

My first post on the subject of gender roles was circling the subject. Gender roles are a learned behavior to conform to gender norms, i.e. Boys wear shirts and pants/girls wear dresses, boys like activity/girls like tea parties , and boys go to the boy's bathroom/girls go to the girls bathroom. There's nothing inherently right or wrong with gender roles, but it makes alien behavior less desirable in the developing mind of kids.

 

I did mention gender roles as a follow up point to Aditus

 

 

How I wish this were true. My nephew is fourteen. He made a short play for English class with two friends. He dressed as a girl. He borrowed a dress, his sister did the make-up. He wears his blond hair shoulder long btw. He was shocked at the reaction he got. The tamer were something like: Why do you dress like a girl? He: It's for a play. They: Oh okay, otherwise I had to hit you. He: Why? They: If you were gay I had to hit you easy as pie.

He had many discussions with other students and teachers. The teachers were okay but the students not so much. He tried to explain the difference between attraction and how you behave. More often than he liked he got: Well if you act on it we'll beat the crap outta you.

 

 

We need more open minded gay jocks , just saying

 

The problem from the gay effeminate stereotype is that boys are taught to have an aversion to feminine side of things at a young age, not merely because they are taught to hate gays, but that they are taught that gender roles is what defines you.

 

These kids aren't homophobes, yet, they are just anti-feminist. If there were a few butch gay jocks around, I think the issue around this nascent gender role problem would be solved more easily.

 

Kids are not taught to hate gay boys from a young age, but they are taught to define themselves as boys, which means "girly" things are wrong for them.The effeminate image of gays make the logical next step as homophobia, unless they know gay guys who are different from their perceptions.

 

----------

 

As for you mentioning "Gender Politics", we have a different definition of what "gender Politics" if what we heard was true about the other boys asking questions and he was trying to argue contrary thoughts.

 

Gender roles are definedas this :
 

 

a set of behaviors that indicates one's gender, specif. the image projected by a person that identifies their femaleness or maleness; an overt public presentation of gender identity

 

While gender politics is defined from the Collins English Dictionary:
 

 

(sociology) debate about the roles and relations of men and women

 

 

They had a debate on the subject of perception of self image; though, it was an impasse. Progress is made by opening questions, even if the answers are not what we want.

 

------

 

Anyway, just want to write an extra long post to explain my views better.

 

I am not against effeminate guys; I just think if boys at a young age meet average/relatable non-effeminate gay guys and learn that boys can like boys without being weird or alien to a gender role, then homophobia's development can be halted. Gender roles must be taught with an open mind and a like mind, you need to reach a touchstone.

Edited July 24, 2014 by W_L

[Graeme]

Thanks for the post, W_L, but I do have one minor problem with it.

I am not against effeminate guys; I just think if boys at a young age meet normal non-effeminate gay guys and learn that boys can like boys without being weird or alien to a gender role, then homophobia's development can be halted. Gender roles must be taught with an open mind and a like mind, you need to reach a touchstone.

I don't like the word "normal" in that paragraph. I think "average" would be better. And, as has been pointed out before, homophobia isn't the only problem. Anti-effeminate behaviour is not acceptable, either. Getting young males to meet and get to know non-effeminate gay guys is a step along the path, but it's only a step. Eliminating the intolerance means doing much more than that.

[W_L]

Thanks for the post, W_L, but I do have one minor problem with it.

I don't like the word "normal" in that paragraph. I think "average" would be better. And, as has been pointed out before, homophobia isn't the only problem. Anti-effeminate behaviour is not acceptable, either. Getting young males to meet and get to know non-effeminate gay guys is a step along the path, but it's only a step. Eliminating the intolerance means doing much more than that.

 

That we can agree,

 

"Normal" does sound a bit harsh, probably "average" or "relatable" would be better.

 

Too bad there is no bring your gay relatives day for kids, not even the most progressive schools have pushed for that yet.

[JamesSavik]

A lot of the putzes that think being gay is a choice have a hobby on the down low.

 

It's their "choice"...

[Zombie]

Zombie, I think I will call you "Mr. Chips", since you obviously have a love of English diction and an aversion to stream of consciousness

 

I have a love of English words and their correct usage - diction too, but that's a whole different kettle of worms...

 

But you still haven't explained what you mean by "These kids aren't homophobes, yet, they are just anti-effeminate", like being "just anti-effeminate" is just fine and dandy

 

 

 

.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Zombie

[Aditus]

Yep, I wondered about the 'just' also.

[Cia]

The problem is believing anyone has the right to judge others based on their appearance, mannerisms, behavior (that doesn't harm others), socio-economic standing, sexuality, gender identity... or anything else. That's what's wrong, not that people aren't exposed to the 'right kind' of gay people. We absorb this sort of judgmental framework from our parents, friends, and other people in our lives like teachers, co-workers, bosses... what is and isn't 'okay' to act like, and how we should treat others who don't fall into those roles.

 

We have to break those barriers ourselves by respecting others above all, and try to lead by example for those around us. Those who are parents need to teach that acceptance to our kids. It is getting better, but there is still a ways to go.

[TetRefine]

Something very interesting happened today at work that very much relates to this topic. I'm currently working as a Youth Counselor at a day camp. During pick-up time, the kids (between the ages of 7-9) were talking about getting married and other random stuff about marriage. One of the kids mentioned something about a show he'd seen where two "old grandpas" got married to each other. As the kid put it, "they were both like, 80 or something". Not one of them made any mention to the fact that they were gay getting married to each other. The whole conversation turned into how it was weird that old people could still get married. Now whether they just didn't pick up on the fact that they were gay or they just didn't care I don't know. But the kid was very clear it was two men getting married that he saw, yet none of them made mention to the fact of it. I think that's progress. 

 

Note to add: This camp is located in a very wealthy, exclusive, and liberal suburb of the city so these kids don't come from "average" backgrounds, but regardless it was encouraging to see such young kids having no problem with the issue. 

[Irritable1]

Free associating a bit... One of the vile ads in favor of Prop 8 that I saw showed a (fictional) mother horrified because her young daughter had come home from school, to announce that she and her best friend were going to be princesses and get married and live together forever.

 

It was absurd because kids routinely ask to marry whoever their favorite person of the week is. I've had to turn down marriage proposals from both my own offspring. Repeatedly. Most parents do. And it really says something about the culture of homophobia, that something so normal and harmless can be turned into a symptom of attack by the "alternative lifestyle" or whatever. I mean, a lot of positive, willful effort had to go into making something so stupid and pointless. It's partly why I don't have a lot of patience for trying to talk this stuff through. I'm really not sure that kind of propaganda is about ignorance as much as malice.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Irritable1

[Kitt]

The problem is believing anyone has the right to judge others based on their appearance, mannerisms, behavior (that doesn't harm others), socio-economic standing, sexuality, gender identity... or anything else.

And that is what those playground bullies Aditus was talking about have LEARNED. The were not born intolerant, they got their intolerant views from parents, older siblings, and the children they hang out with. 

[W_L]

I have a love of English words and their correct usage - diction too, but that's a whole different kettle of worms...

 

But you still haven't explained what you mean by "These kids aren't homophobes, yet, they are just anti-effeminate", like being "just anti-effeminate" is just fine and dandy

 

.

 

"Anti-feminine" is not "anti-effeminate"

 

Let's use the Oxford Dictionary definition this time

 

Feminine is defined as

 

 

Having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness:

 

 

As for effeminate:

 

 

(Of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

 

 

Boys are not taught to be anti-effeminate, but they are taught to be boys and fit a gender role, so my statement is entirely correct in the context. They are taught to be "anti-feminine" in order to identify their gender role. You would do well to study up a little more my green friend

 

@ Matt: Cool story and I agree with the kids, "old people are a little weird"

 

@Cia:

 

I think we are talking about the same things, I just focus on the specific area of gender roles. Kids are taught to behave in a certain way.

 

However, I do have a slight issue:

 

 

We have to break those barriers ourselves by respecting others above all, and try to lead by example for those around us. Those who are parents need to teach that acceptance to our kids. It is getting better, but there is still a ways to go.

 

This concept of "respect" has morphed into a PC term; respecting a different view or aspect of a person does not mean that a person accepts it.  Like, while I respect African American Rappers rapping about their rough lives growing up in the "hood," I don't accept that kind of behavior or particularly approve of it. Still, a lot of people would disagree with me and declare themselves "gangsta's for Life" despite the implications.

 

However, that is their right to believe and think, so I am not going to force them into believing what I believe. As I said, it's a minor point, we pretty much agree that there's a lot of room to improve and behaviors are taught

 

For me, the best type of Education comes from experience, we need to give people more experience and diversity.

 

An average relatable gay guy is just one example, we need kids to meet average Muslims, female executives, male homemakers, African American Scientists, Caucasian ditch diggers....you get my point. We teach kids a world view, but we must challenge their world view constantly and continuously, because nothing is completely black and white in this world.

 

I believe in education through experience being the most important aspect of reconciling differences and coming to terms with others. Parental education and peer pressure only goes so far without a factual basis.

Edited July 24, 2014 by W_L

[Zombie]

Boys are not taught to be anti-effeminate, but they are taught to be boys and fit a gender role, so my statement is entirely correct in the context. They are taught to be "anti-feminine" in order to identify their gender role. You would do well to study up a little more my green friend

 

 

Thanks for the OED dictionary extracts. Most helpful.

 

Problem is, you didn't say "anti-feminine".

 

You said "anti-feminist" - hence my original throwaway remark #18

 

So maybe it's you that needs to do a little more study on your word power

 

[Cia]

I expect people to respect my preferences and choices, without attempting to push their agenda on me... so I show respect for others the same way. It's also known as tolerance. I don't have to embrace a lifestyle to not denigrate or disrespect it. I try to teach my kids the same. That is the essence of respect.