Pride and Prejudice - Homophobia in the 21st Century

Prejudice is, of course, alive and well, as much so as it ever was and forever, unfortunately, will be. It has many forms; racism, homophobia, sexism, sectarianism etc, etc, etc. Much like the common cold, ignorance is a disease without a known cure. But why? Political correctness has done an awful lot to sideline the most blatant forms of prejudice from the mainstream media - no more Rivers of Blood speeches to be printed on todays front page.

The Internet has proven a revelation in so many ways, positive and negative, and allows ordinary people to voice their opinions in a non scripted fashion. From the heart, without fear of consequence. True opinions, warts and all. Which gives the world an opportunity to look at, examine and learn from the reality that exists beyond the sanitised news desks of CBS, CNN and the BBC.

An issue I have been studying for some months is homophobia, and one particular poster on a popular forum has long been extremely frank and revealing when contributing to various threads, including ones on the subject of homosexuality. Below is a barely edited (names have been removed; a series of three dots signifies irrelevant material removed) account of a personal view on the subject by a poster who goes by the name of RJHowie. A thread had been started regarding the recent arrest for lewd conduct in a public lavatory of a US senator, who has a long history of voting against gay legislation. Another poster suggested, with a wink, that the most fervent gay bashers (referring to the senator) always seem to have something to hide. RJHowie came into the affray in a most defensive way! I have made bold the words and phrases that I will refer to.

How deeply worked out that entreaty was . Almost as rabid as a gay-basher in fact. It's a load of old bull and a common trait in those who wish to bash anyone who doesn't support queers to label any of the anti-homosexual tribe as weird and homophobic. This word has become the standard do-down and I will again remind that phobic suggests a fear. I am not interested in bashing anyone and that includes queers. I don't have any time for their lifestyle and as they are legal these days as long as they keep away from me and mine - fine. I am certainly not frightened of them nor cower in fear so phobic may apply to some but in general it is a much misused word....

Can I say to that he has really only emphasised what I said that if you criticise the queer lobby the hinted attempt to mock or put down is you have something to hide. Well I don't. I am 100% straight and following the natural way, fancy only women. The long line of Glaswegian women that flowed through my life will justify that this is a real man.The only pansies I like are in a garden. So suggest all you like boys and try and create smoke. Maybe some of you are being less than honest but I am not.

And to you , I am aware of a point being made but does not put aside what I asserted by any manner of means. I regret that years ago Lord Wolfenden's report here led the way to legalisation but I have to accept this as a fact of life. However I will never be told I must like what they do or the bandwagon that is militantly brought out to encourage their horrible ways.Meanwhile I may have to put up with their rights but I am damn well not going to have the queer lobby being given some kind of special status just because they are a minority. I am thankful that they are just that which is something. No doubt this will all be music to the ears of all you great liberal minds that see anything that clashes with your liberal views as horror and confirming your own stereotyping. Doesn't bother me too much as I KNOW what I am. Just because I don't see their lifestyle as natural is my right too.

The first, and most blatant, thing you may have noticed is the choice of language. In a post aimed at defending 'anti-homosexualism' as not being related to homophobia, the repeated use of the word 'queers' and then the word 'pansy' would seem to be a little contradictory. But that could be explained away, possibly, by claims of context. It is possible to be anti-homosexual, and not homophobic. Those of a religious trait, who interpret their holy book of choice as being against homosexuality, may disagree with religious marriages of homosexuals. They may on the other hand support equality for homosexuals in society in every way possible. There are many clubs/organisations/institutes around the world that have rules and regulations that specify certain conditions of its members. Is the Women's Institute sexist? the NAACP racist? Probably not....
But it is far harder to explain that opinions are not homophobic when they are clearly suggesting homosexuals are in some way unnatural, have horrible ways, should keep away from 'me and mine', should not be permitted legally, and that they are receiving some sort of special treatment. Which will be fought, apparently.

It takes a huge degree of ignorance, misunderstanding and fear (yes, fear) to make such a statement. Although, incidentally, whilst the word phobia does imply fear, the word homophobia itself is a noun collocation which has evolved in meaning, and a sense of fear is no longer a requirement to be homophobic:

Main Entry: homophobia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

And yet, so often, there is a strong sense of fear prevalent in the use of a homophobe's language. Can you imagine how RJHowie would react to being placed in a gay nightclub? I suspect he would display a 'backs to the wall' posture.

So what can we learn from RJHowie? How does an individual hold such beliefs, and at the same time genuinely believe himself to be a tolerant, non homophobic person? Education is obviously an issue, but this is very much an issue of society, not the individual. The key factor is the inability of groups of people to accept that others who are different from them as simply that - different from them. Different, to them, means inferior. Of lesser value. Lower moral standards. And hence the vocabulary that follows. Inferior is negative, and so it follows that the choice of language will reflect that.

This is an inherent attribute of the human race and not one, in my opinion, that will be possible to eradicate.