I understand what you're suggesting, but in my experience most people who use the word do so with implicit homophobic connotations. The very fact that they're using the word 'gay' to describe something negative is connected to the fact that they believe homosexuality to be something negative. If your experience differs, I can only assume that you live in a more progressive part of the country! Regardless of that though, I still don't think it's a good idea to use a word that describes homosexuals as an insult. It encourages a conceptual conection between homosexuality and negativity. Just a thought, but how would you feel if someone started using 'negro' in a similar way? "Uuugghhh..... how negro!".
A phrase I sometimes use is "you're such a girl!" which may well be seen to be sexist in the same way as "that's so gay" can be seen as homophobic. In fact what I'm doing is using a transgressive statement ironically and in doing so subverting its original meaning. The application of the "gay" insult to inanimate objects, or opinions, or things which really have nothing to do with homosexuality, distances it for me just enough from its original meaning for it to be a creative, ironic use of language rather than an unacceptable slur. Part of the joy of being transgressive in language is that it has the ability to disrupt people's expectations and change their patterns of thought. Subversion and subtlety of meaning is what makes language interesting for me, and this includes the reclamation and reinvention of potentially offensive words. If political correctness reigned we would never be able to reclaim words or change their meanings. Sometimes offensiveness in language serves an extremely important purpose...
That's a poor analogy. For a start, many 'girly' traits aren't seen as negative - merely feminine. Calling someone a girl is therefore not necessarily negative, but simply implying that they're feminine. The intention isn't so much an insult as an observation. 'Gay' is used in a much more derisory fashion. Also, I don't think women are currently getting their heads kicked in for being women. While the battle for sexual equality may not exactly have been won, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that women suffer the same kind of prejudice to which gay people are subjected. You're playing with semantics. Everyone I've heard using 'gay' as an insult has clearly meant "you're so homosexual, and homosexuality is something horrible that nobody would want to be". As I said, if that's not your experience, I can only assume attitudes differ in different geographic locations or social strata. As a broad principle, I don't disagree. However, a good analogy might be the word '******'. This word was reclaimed, but in doing so its use was transformed into a statement of positivity. To be a '******' was a good thing. In using the word 'gay', you are not implying that being gay is a good thing. Also, your argument hinges on the attitude of those around you. If I was to start using the word 'gay' in the workplace, my narrow-minded colleagues would simply assume that I was sharing in their prejudice. They certainly wouldn't think I was reclaiming the word! Sorry Showmet, but I firmly believe that the use of the word 'gay' simply reinforces the belief that homosexuality is something negative and undesirable. If you were using the word in a positive or neutral context, then I'd have no problem with that.
Yeah that is very true, any utterance is shaped by its intended audience. I am sometimes deliberately shocking, offensive and transgressive for all the reasons I've stated, but it depends who I'm with and how well I know them. Equally you can very often tell when someone is using offensiveness subversively and creatively and when they are simply being bigoted. And that's why in certain contexts, reclaimed slang phrases like "that's so gay" are extremely valuable in the evolution of English as a current and vital language. In others, sure, it can just be ignorant and bigoted - but in the context it was used in this thread I believe it was nothing of the sort.
I'd go along with that completely. I delight in telling highly offensive racist and homophobic jokes for example, but only amongst people I know for certain do not hold views of that nature. But didn't we just establish that the attitude of the audience was equally as important? I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. But you can't escape the fact that if someone uses the word 'gay' in a negative context, then it's inevitably reinforcing the prejudice that homosexuality is a bad thing. You didn't answer my question about the word 'negro' btw
Not if it's used subversively and ironically... (and round and round we go ) I was just making a comment ... I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition or the Thought Police
The problem their is that your audience may have no idea of your intention to be subversive and ironic. While your busy running intellectual rings around them with your sharp wit and cunning re-imagination of the English language, they're busy not noticing any of it and thinkin "uhhhh... he must hate queers too". A generalisation, obviously. Why Mr Met! I've never known you to shy away from a vigorous debate! You're such a girl
Yeah as I said before you shape it to the audience you're talking to ... but even so I don't dumb down to make sure my irony is understood. If people don't understand me and assume I'm simply being a bigot I just switch patterns on them in order to confuse them and disrupt their wrong assumption. Well I have nothing in principle against subverting the meaning of the word "negro". Other than that's it's not a term that automatically lends itself to subversion; the subversion of a word or phrase has a lot to do with its historical meaning(s).
All very well in the world of conversational acrobatics, but doesn't really work on a forum. I'd argue the same for the word 'gay'. Bottom line is still that its use in as an insult creates a connection between homosexuality and negativity.
I don't really understand why you and noSelfcontrol are getting so wound up... Infact you're kinda adding fuel to the fire, or was that the intention? If you don't like the thread, just don't read it Love Clairexxx
Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I never said this.* And people say I have no tact! :H * I might have been thinking it though
it's not my intention to flame or anything like that. It just seems that everybody is rehashing the same arguements, that's all. I hang around to see if anything new is contributed.
I don't think thats the point Ms B.. anyway claire i agree please let 'me' die .... or Ms B start talking about what a wonderful person i am or something hahaha not realy you would be here far to long hahah no just joking .. speak with you soon , i hope.
i gots to say that i was suprised when on like my 2nd or 3rd post in this place dok made a point i was christian and had dug up some random things i had said to make a heavy debate. but i'm not whining it was a good fun debate i think mathew you just got to take things less personal, dok might be a bit cunning and overly suspicouse but its only an internet forum i think this should be settled by an MC battle or maybe bear bating?
hahah your right, but i am not the only one Mr DoktorAtomik needs to take a few chill pills as well. I just stick my greivances with that ****** to PMs now . You may see a few on this thread in the future if he is feeling bored . Well thankyou , its all true ..... :&
