Just been rereading the wonderful books by Warren Farrell, who writes about sexism against men.
He postulates that long long ago, homosexual men were a “bad thing” because they would not feel their “assigned role” of providing for women and their children.
It makes sense, but it has persisted nowadays, when women do not need to be totally supported.
Its still a male thing, I think, as most women aren’t phobed-out by lesbians.
Many ex-gay people are also anti-gay (not to mention detrimental to the struggle for gay rights). This particular individual was, if memory serves, both self-proclaimed ex-gay and firmly anti-gay. That is why I included mention of him in my post.
Ever hear of Roy Cohn?
:rolleyes:
Dude…shut the fuck up…
And this would invalidate the etymology exactly how?
The word “nigger” wasn’t as harshly frowned upon before the Civil Rights movement, I daresay. You gonna pick and choose which episodes in a word’s evolution you’re gonna acknowledge?
And you’re gonna start by refusing to acknowledge any etymological influence the “gay movement” may have had on a word that’s critically relevant to that movement?
Well, if it quacks like a duck . . .
Thus far you’ve been consistently talking out your ass.
Apart from your misplaced and ludicrous outraged nature, is their going to be the slightest shard of substance to your posts in this thread?
The ‘ex-gays’ are virulently anti gay and parrot all the the slimy dishonest bullshit that the Christian Right has been claiming about gay people bringing ruin to society, causing cats and dogs to cohabit without the bonds of marriage, and for the grass to turn blue and the sky green.
No, I’m saying maybe a certain group of people decided to coin a word to make it pack more of a punch.
Dud… you’re the one spouting pointless tripe.
Do you just type to reassure yourself that you’re alive?
Sure. I’m not saying that the anti-gays and the ex-gays have any difference in their rhetoric. The ex-gays ARE anti-gays.
The comment was in the context of anti-gay leaders coming out as gay. There’s a big difference between an admitted gay deciding to become “un-gay” (which is impossible) and then go on a crusade against gays, only to finally be “outed” when it is revealed that, surprise, he was GAY all along, and someone who goes his WHOLE LIFE criticizing gays and then, out of the blue, turns out to himself be homosexual.
It’d be like if Rick Santorum came out as gay. Or even better, Fred Phelps.
If this is to be believed, it was coined not by a group of people so much as one. This has an article with a bit of a different slant to it. I make no claims about the scholarship of that, but these sources may help bolster things a bit.
Um, would that be a - ahem - poo-punch, Mr Homophobe?
Or, as someone mentioned, Roy Cohn.
Does anyone else think that this thread isn’t going AT ALL, how the OP hoped it would?
Ahem, sorry. Carry on…
<Edward G. Robinson voice> Nyaahhh… All right you queers listen up! We ain’t afraid of you mugs… see! </Edward G. Robinson voice>
Very funny. I have stated repeatedly that I’m not anti-gay nor “homophobic,” so don’t try to turn things around on me.
Nobody here is listening to what I’m trying to say. Too many people have gotten upset.
Paul, I started a thread on this very subject last winter, and I can tell you you’re not going to get anywhere…and as I found out, perhaps for a pretty good reason. I am fully in favor of gay people and gay rights (and I’m happy to say I made some good friends from the gay community here as a result of that thread) but I found the use of this word in this way to be objectionable for pretty much the same reason as you.
I know of no other word in common usage where the suffix “phobe” is added to a word to indicate mere aversion. When people are deathly afraid of flying they are said to have a phobia; when they simply don’t like to fly they are said to have an aversion to it. When people are deathly afraid of spiders they are said to have a phobia about them; when they simply don’t like spiders they are said to have an aversion to them.
In short, I objected to it because I thought it was basically dishonest. I tend to have a problem with dishonesty and I felt that labelling people as being phobic when they weren’t was simply wrong.
However, I’ve been here longer now and I’ve developed the philosophy that gays have enough problems to deal with, and unfairness and dishonesty to deal with in their own lives, that if they should misappropriate a word in their effort to acheive equality and a better life, it really isn’t that big of a deal in the overall scope of things. In other words, it seems like a rather minor infraction compared with the guff and unfairness and dishonesty they have to contend with.
And since coming to this realization I find the word doesn’t bother me nearly as much. I hope the same for you.
Regards.
Ahem…make that “and enough unfairness and dishonesty to deal with…etc.”
And I even previewed! :smack:
And yet in this very thread you said:
:rolleyes: Stereotype much?
Now, about this “annoyance” you attribute to those you consider anti-gay. That’s an interesting word choice. Other misguided fools call them homophobes, but they’re not askeered of gays. Nope, just annoyed. Annoyed enough to treat treat gays as second-class citizens. Not afraid, nope, just annoyed, maybe even irked by those faggoty mannerisms. Perturbed, even, enough to incite a little venting of pique via gay-bashing.
No, I don’t think so. Don’t twist things around.
I’m telling you why I think most people (especially people my age, in college) who do not like gays do not like them. I’m not anti-gay and you can’t prove that I am with your theory.
Don’t sweat it, dumpling. I got what you meant even without that pesky stray. 
Very good post, by the way, even if it did make you fervently wish for an “edit” function. You’ve grown a lot since you joined the Dope. I’ll continue to disagree with you (and the OP) on whether “homophobe” should be restricted to its etymological roots, or allowed to develop and accrete new layers of meaning, but if you choose a narrower definition for your own speech and writing, no big deal. In language no less than law, there is a perpetual tension between strict construction and expansive interpretation.