ROLAND MARTIN AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOPHOBIA

Homophobia ALWAYS has consequences. The only thing different about Roland Martin is that the perpetrator also has to feel it. Gay people know that homophobia has consequences. It’s homophobic straight people who are waking up to this reality. When I think of the many gay people who have lost family, jobs, their lives to homophobia, Roland losing his speaking gig does not equate.

QUESTIONS, FRAMING, AND IMPLICATIONS

I strongly believe in the act of asking questions. Questions are one of the primary ways by which new knowledge is yielded. But, I also know that the way we frame questions, and the implications of that framing, are also important aspects of the act of asking questions. Recently, I was involved in two situations that centered around the act of asking questions, and the implications that come from these questions. In this essay, I will explore the act of questioning, the way questions are framed, and the implications, if any, of asking questions.

Thinkers, intellects, scholars, and academics all ask questions. I would be hard pressed to find a person who did not expect anyone to not ask questions. However, I will continue to assert that the questions we ask, and the way that they are framed, are just as important as the answers we seek. There absolutely exists a need to ask questions, but there is also a need, or rather, a responsibility to be aware of the way in which we frame questions, and the implications, many times negative, that come along from poorly framed questions.

As I mentioned earlier, I have recently been involved with two situations regarding questions, framing, and implications. The first situation revolved around a question asked by Dr. Steve Perry. Perry, most known for his Capital Preparatory Magnet School, asked a question that left some feeling uneasy. Perry asked, “Given the recent FAMU tragedy, do Black groups, colleges & high schools foster brutality?” On the surface, Perry’s question looked to many to be an opportunity to start dialogue on hazing in American schools, but looking deeper we can see that the question is also problematic. The way in which the question is framed, its placing of an HBCU next to a question invoking Black brutality, has certain racist implications, in my opinion. Perry has the right to ask his question, but there also exists a right to consider the framing and implications. Would a similar question ever be leveled at White America? Would the sexual assault that took place at Penn State constitute an examination of the brutality of White America? I think not. There tends to be a need to associate individual Black acts with collective Black pathology. Perry’s question could have been framed in any number of ways, and it still would have sparked the conversation that Perry had in mind.

The second incident revolved around a question asked by “Dr. Goddess,” a well known Twitter personality. After reading an article about Kobe Bryant’s alleged sexual activities, Dr. Goddess posed a question the following question to Twitter, “If you’re a heterosexual man and you just LOVE anal sex, like, it’s your preference… are you really gay? #curious #sorry.” In my mind, this question immediately ran as homophobic, but others had different opinions, particularly Dr. Goddess. In her mind, the question wasn’t problematic because, in her own words, “I really DON’T know “gay life,” “I HONESTLY do not know. Is that okay? I mean… I am so confused right now…” Like unintended bigots before her, Dr. Goddess hid behind her heterosexual privilege, as opposed to accounting for the way she framed her question, and the implications of that question. Many people came to the aid of Dr. Goddess, and they were well within their right to do so. In their mind, questions are incapable of harboring bigotry, after all, questions are the way that new knowledge is yielded. I would disagree, however. I think it was possible for Dr. Goddess to examine heterosexuality without using homosexual as “sexual other” on which heterosexuality is examined. The question need not to have invoked homosexuality at all. For example, “If you are a straight man, and you really enjoy anal, why don’t you prefer vaginal?” Or, “What are our thoughts on anal sex as practiced among heterosexuals?” These all could have sparked a conversation on anal sex, and they would have done so without using homosexuality as a sexuality stepping stone. “I think questions, particularly those poorly framed, have a long history of racist, sexist, and homophobic implications, and this was just a continuation of that history.

There exists a very real stereotype, underlying homophobia, that insists that anal sex is a thing that gay people do. This homophobic stereotype assumes that heterosexuals do not consistently engage in anal sex, and that it is one of the hallmarks of homosexuality. Both stereotypes are untrue. I don’t know all the statistics on anal sex, but anyone who has watched a heterosexual porn knows that anal sex place, and often. Also, as someone who is gay, I know that there are a variety of sexual activities engaged in by members of the gay community. The assumption that anal sex is “gay,” also, rests upon the phallocentric assumption that lesbians do not count as gay.

In Toni Morrison’s Beloved, we get a clear picture of the very real implications that arise from our poorly framed questions. In the novel, the protagonist Sethe recounts her experience with a White racist man named Schoolteacher, who used questions to support and explore his racist thinking. Schoolteacher, “measures the body of the enslaved and asks incessant, probing questions in order to control them through his knowledge of them.” I highlight this, to bring light to the fact that questions are quite capable of carrying bigoted associations and implications. Bigotry– in Dr. Goddess’ case homophobia–is often enshrined in the act of questioning.

I do not believe that Dr. Steve Perry or Dr. Goddess are horrible people, but I do think they are, both, individuals who had lapses in judgment. They asked poorly framed questions, and were unwilling to accept that their questions had negative implications. No one, not even respected thinkers, is above criticism. We all have a responsibility to exercise care and consideration when we ask questions.

Update: Here is a collection of the tweets that transpired that night. I don’t feel that it’s very cohesive, but it’s better than nothing. Judge for yourselves. chirpstory.com/li/3601

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

One of the favorite lies of homophobes, is that they are just really concerned for children and don’t want them exposed to awful things like homosexuality. Homphobes love to promote the false idea that they’re hateful bigotry is really all about protecting children from being corrupted by people of minority sexual orientations. Once most people hear the word child they automatically jump on board.

But what I find really ludicrous about the whole “think of the children” line of thought is how homophobic it really is. It assumes, very ignorantly I might add, that all children are heterosexual and thus need to be protected from homosexuality or the knowledge of it. But what about the little gay boys and girls! Who is protecting them? Who is shielding them from heterosexism? Or are we just to assume that little gay boys don’t need protection from being inundated with the message that only heterosexuals are appropriate to be exposed to?

If straight children need to be protected from homosexuality surely the same is true for gay children, or are we saying that one child is more valuable than the other?

In their rush to protect children from being exposed to diverse sexual orientations, homophobes fail to realize that the very children they think they are protecting have diverse sexual orientations. The notion that all children are straight is not only ignorant but also very dangerous.

Homophobes (gay and straight) who have bought into the hatred based lie of protecting children from something they “aren’t ready for,” should realize that some of those kids are the very thing homophobes claim to be protecting them from.

Only bigots feel the need to protect their children from diversity.

Excuses To Hate (And Deny Rights) Are Awesome!

So I was talking to a friend about a certain “prejudice”. The name of the prejudice may or may not be valid but at any rate that is what me and the friend were talking about.

So lets say a certain group of people are lobbying for rights. And you feel that these people do not deserve the rights they lobby for. You quote scripture, historical text, statistics, your pastor, your parents, and common sense all as justifications of your prejudice.. real fancy and educated.

Now recently I have come to the conclusion that blacks were just u know “asking for it” back in the 50s and 60s what was the BIG deal about them wanting rights anyway… Now of course I was like how dare those prejudice people deny others rights that they should be entitled to but…. my friend summed it up perfectly.

“but you cant blame people for being raised a certain way”

Which is absolutely true becuz well you cant. If you were raised that only men can walk on two legs, and only fish should swim in water. Far be it from me to expect you to recognize the error of your understanding. After all how you were raised is how you were raised. I mean you may even have historical text, religious writings, and statistics to back up your beliefs that only fish should swim in ponds, only women should bake sweet potato pie, etc.

Now you would think that the parallels between a certain bleak period (and denial of rights) would, you know, warrant some understanding for the struggle of a newer movement. If not acceptance SURELY understanding of these persons struggle but…. alas no such thing.

Now again I could be like whoa how dare you not see the connection between one injustice (skin color) and another (gays) BUT you were probably raised to believe how you believe AND have stats and scripture and diagrams to support and justify your hate/discrimination/prejudice. And I mean those are awesome excuses to be a bigot.

The moral of the story: Excuses are awesome. So the next time you see a white person with a “Damn I hate that nigger in the white house” excuse. Just remember this person perhaps was just raised to think that niggers are inferior and unfit for public office. And they may or may not have scripture, quotes, historical text, and awesome powerpoints to justify their prejudice!