It’s more than a little misleading. Prejudice is by no means the same thing as fear, much less a pathological condition such as a phobia. If you don’t mean ‘fear,’ then you shouldn’t be calling it a phobia.
The fact that some people choose to define it as you describe does not excuse the incorrect and deceptive choice of such terminology. I think it’s rather hypocritical to get riled up about terms like ‘pro-gay’ or ‘pro-homosexual,’ and then dismiss the deceptive use of ‘homophobia’ by saying ‘Well, I say we should define this as something that’s not a phobia at all. There! The term is now accurate.’
I don’t follow your point, sqweels. Are you saying that the public humiliation of students is a good or amusing thing?
Obviously you think this differs somehow from the humiliation felt by atheist or Wiccan students who choose to refrain from participating in public prayer sessions, led by other authority figures in the class room.
Is it purely a question of whose ox is being gored? I would hope very sincerely not.
It’s not a reaction to the words themselves. The term “pro-homosexual,” as DMC so helpfully demonstrated, is socially conservative lingo. Those who see nothing at all wrong with homosexuality simply don’t use the term (or, rather, its use by them is exceedingly rare). Those who took issue with JTC’s use of the term, I imagine, read something into his (her?) choice of words, taking them (as I did) to be indicative of generally “anti-gay” sentiments (I’d be willing to bet, for example, that JTC believes homosexual activity to be sinful. Am I wrong?). JThunder:
First it’s “psychological disorder,” then it’s “severe psychological disorder.” What, were you upset that no one called you on it the first time? (Just kidding, naturally.)
The point I actually want to make is that the term “phobia,” coming from a doctor or therapist of some sort, would likely (though not certainly) denote some sort of psychological disorder. This is not the case with every day usage of the term. If I said that I had a phobia of spiders, I would not be claiming to have a psychological disorder (much less a “severe” one), nor would I be misusing the language.
I think your use of the words “some people” clouds the fact that, in many very large circles, including much of the media, “homophobia” has become shorthand for “prejudice against gays (often stemming, ultimately, from fear).” I don’t believe I have ever heard the term used to express an actual psychological pathology. Given such factors as intent, meaning, context, inference, etc., words are often more than the sum of their roots, prefixes, and suffixes. (You can even check the dictionary.) Shodan:
I saw no indication in sqweels’ post that she thinks the humiliation of these students is a good thing. I thought it was clear that her intent was to point out that the “Pacific Justice Institute,” which is apparently very troubled by the embarassment of these (supposedly heterosexual) students, had shown no concern for the “embarassment” of gay students who could quite conceivably use language identical to that in the article (“I felt like I was being judged as a bad person … my classmates stared at me like I had done something wrong.”) Re: The OP, which no one seems to be discussing
In general, I would agree that public shools should not be teaching morality. There is no reason to make this an inflexible precept, however.
To a degree, of course, the teaching of a certain kind of morality is unavoidable. Teachers are going to pass on common value judgements (e.g., “Murder is bad, charity is good”) fequently during the course of the day. These are generally non-controversial moral issues.
To the extent feasible, I’d prefer that schools stear clear of controversial moral issues, becuase of the obvious question of whose morals are to be taught. However, there are some times that a school is faced with a serious practical dilemma, irrespective of morals. Such a dilemma might involve, say, a high rate of pregnancy and/or STD’s among students. A common solution to this problem has been the distribution of condoms. The easy availability of birth control to a sexually active population has a distinct negative effect on the birth rate of that population, hence the distribution of birth control can reasonably be considered a good way to address the problem. Whether this solution is too immoral to be implemented depends on one’s sense of morality. Being opposed neither to birth control nor (generally) teenage sex, I have no problem with it. (I’ve found the practical concerns raised to condom-distribution to be unconvincing, but that’s even further besides the point.)
In the matter at hand, the problem is depression amongst, ostracism of, and even violence against its gay students. Since everyone spends so much time there, furthermore, schools are also good places to address these same problems in society in general. Again, since I have no problem with telling children that being gay does not make one a bad person, I don’t mind that they do this.
Whether or not the program the OP mentions was hurtful or helpful, or well or poorly executed, cannot be determined without a description from something resembling an objective source.
– Jer
No, it’s more than that. Several posters have claimed that to be ‘pro-’ something is to actively encourage that same thing. We’ve already seen that that’s a fallacious interpretation of that prefix.
Well first of all, the everyday usage is still inaccurate – but at least it denotes a genuine fear. In contrast, homophobia typically has nothing to do with fear. Labeling it as a ‘phobia’ – even in the loose, inaccurate, everyday sense of the term – is a grave misrepresentation of this phenomenon.
And second, it’s awfully hypocritical to demand some precise, inflexible interpretation of ‘pro-gay’ or ‘pro-homosexual’, but then demand broad latitude in calling someone ‘homophobic.’ To make matters worse, the latter is a blatantly derogatory term, unlike the former examples.
Was there any evidence that such language had been used against gays in this situation? Or is this merely conjecture? This is, after all, a single specific story. I think it’s a bit unfair to judge the Pacific Justice Institute based on a hypothetical situation wherein the gays might have been on the receiving end of such embarassment.
Also note that PJI specifically focuses on religious liberties. One might wonder why their story didn’t discuss the embarassment of gays as well – but if we do, then we should also ask why Planned Parenthood doesn’t stand up and defend religous liberties as well. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I would hope that this is one area where everyone can agree! Violence against, and ostracism of homosexuals is a moral issue which must be addressed – REGARDLESS of one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself.
Of course, if people seriously believe that the schools shouldn’t be teaching morality, then this just won’t happen – at least, not if these people have any consistency to that belief.
Actually, PJI’s mission includes protection of civil liberties, so we could ask them why they didn’t include the rights of gays and their plight. The mission of Planned Parenthood on the other hand is limited to sexuality and reproduction.
No, we haven’t already seen that. I stand by my previous statements. I did check the links to the term “pro-gay”, most of which were referring to organizations that go out of their way to help gays fight for their rights, usually by sponsorships and donations. American Airlines is a good example. I on the other hand feel that they deserved to be treated equally on all counts, which isn’t the same thing (actually, I’d just prefer we all didn’t worry about each other’s sexual proclivites, but that isn’t happening anytime soon). You seem to ignore most of my comments (“pro-family” as a label, for instance) and focus on this single term, which you think we should all be happy to have as our “label.”
I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m extremely careful in the use of the term homophobia. If you do a search, you’ll find I’ve used it a single time, which was when I defended december against accusations of homophobia.
So, since I’m not calling you a homophobe, and never have done so to anyone on this messageboard, even though I’d be willing to bet that you aren’t particularly fond of homosexuality, how hard would it be to extend the same courtesy and stop using “pro-family:rolleyes:” rhetoric?
Are you familiar with the term “xenophobia”, JThunder? It means hatred of foreigners and foreign things. It’s a much older word than homophobic and it’s used in the same “inaccurate” way. Are you just as angry over this word’s misuse? Lots of words have meanings that are etymologically incorrect. Hysteria has nothing to do with womb disturbances, even though its name implies that it does. A gleeful kindergarten teacher who loves her students would never want to be described as a pedophile, even though it technically means “lover of children”. And you drive in a parkway and park in a driveway. The English language does not always make sense. Why is it soley homophobia that sticks in your craw?
“Planned Parenthood isn’t just about controlling births. They also have a pro-homosexual agenda.”
Hey, they go hand in hand. I can’t think of a better way to control the world’s population than encouraging people to keep to their own gender for fun and have the other lend a hand (or whatever) when it comes to procreation.
Hysteria,at the time of its coinage, was precisely intended to reference women.
I would suggest that it sticks in JT’s craw because it is often used to silence debate or marginalize one’s opponents. Would it make sense to call atheists theophobes? Or homosexual men gynophobes? (Actually the latter was done at one time, before we were honest enough to admit that it isn’t, in most cases, true.)
Of course it wouldn’t be fair. It would be using the well-known suffix -phobia to imply that the members of the group were mentally ill. It is not meant to accurately address or describe them: it is meant to marginalize them in the eyes of others.
It is similar in purpose to the pejorative (and inaccurate) “anti-choice” and “anti-life.”
furt is exactly right. Why in the world would you accuse some group of being phobic if you know full well that it’s not true? Why deliberately use a term that is deceptive and grossly inaccurate?
An honest debater does not feel obligated misrepresent his opponent’s state of mind.
And if you feel that such precision is not necessary, then please do not object when somebody describes Planned Parenthood as being “pro-homosexual.”
As a matter of fact, I do deplore its misuse. (And FTR, “anger” does not come into the equation. Anger is not necessary when lamenting the misrepresentation of someone’s view.)
Well, furt has already shown that claim to be false.
Besides, the point remains. If you believe that ‘homophobia’ should be excused despite it’s etymological inaccuracy, then please don’t whine about relatively harmless (and non-demeaning!) terms like ‘pro-homosexual.’ You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand strict etymological correctness of your opponents, yet claim broad discretionary powers for yourself.
Jesus, folks. How is this a debate? I am a scientist. We take extraordinary care to use precise language. To avoid connotations found in everyday speech, we resort to jargon. It is unavoidable because everyday speech is loaded with things that don’t mean what they really should. When we say something is necessary and sufficient, we mean very specific things. When we say something is exact and precise, we mean very specific things.
pro-homosexual. What it means = Supporting a homosexual lifestyle even though we all know that it is a sin to God Almighty, as quoted in Leviticus and by St. Paul. What it should mean = supporting of a homosexual lifestyle, or support of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle.
pro-family. What it means = something about welfare moms being bad, divorce being a consequence of liberals especially JFK and Al Gore, and blaming Bill Clinton for everything from violent crime to the sunspot cycle to the fall of Tobruk in 1941. What it should mean = supporting of families.
pro-life. What it means = All the egg and sperm have to do is come into physical contact for creation of new life, which should be entitled to all God-Given Rights Of American Citizens, not limited to gun ownership, SUV tax breaks, ability to apply for NIH funding for postdoctoral fellowships, and the right to hire illegal immigrants to mow your chemically treated lawn. What it should mean = for life.
And it goes on, to pro-choice, anti-Semite, pro-gun control, compassionate conservatism, fish sticks. Our ability to twist and distort the meanings of otherwise straightforward terms is one of the greatest and most enduring legacies of American culture. Or kulture, if you please. Don’t act like this is something new. The power of suggestion has won wars, stopped depressions, and created Pet Rocks.
hmmm. i have two more words to throw into this trainwrecked topic.
annotation= the dictionary definition of a word
connotation= the associative definition of a word.
annotative definition= inherently neutral and precise
connotative definition= moot and vague but ironically the more important of the two
e.g. full-figured vs. flabby.
vain vs. confident
juvenile delinquent vs. free spirited youth
okay, three more words: forest, trees, and hairsplitting. ::shrug::
both words work…oh great now i can’t get that song out of my head…you say potayto and i say potahto…
