We arguably face a far more serious choice when it comes to anti-gay bigotry: is it more important that we maintain anti-gay bigotry in the military by kicking gays out, or is it more important that we prevent future terrorist attacks by using Arabic language specialists who happen to be gay? As far as the government and many conservative Christians are concerned, maintaining anti-gay bigotry is far more important and that's why gay language specialists are kicked out of the military. It doesn't matter that there is such a shortage of such specialists that the military is offering bonuses of up to $150,000 for them.
The Daily Show’s Jason Jones sat down with Paul Cameron, one of the nation’s leading anti-gay activists, who said, “I think the country, on the aggregate, is safer without Bleu in the military.” Asked why, Cameron explained, “Guys don’t want to think about other guys, other fellas, ogling them in the shower or whatever.”
Jones responded, “I know I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than suffer through an uncomfortable shower with a gay.” Cameron grudgingly responded, “Yes.”
Our government agrees with this. Again, I have no idea why.
It’s very simple. What’s more important: translating these communications intercepts, or discriminating against patriotic, gay volunteers who are willing to serve in the military in a time of two wars? It’s one or the other.
Source: The Carpetbagger Report, emphasis added
So if Paul Cameron is made uncomfortable by the presence of a gay man, it's the gay man who should be expected to leave. But why is that? Assuming that the gay man isn't doing anything in particular that should be expected to make others feel uncomfortable, why shouldn't Paul Cameron be the one who is expected to leave? Why should the makeup of the military by dictated by the comfort level of bigots?
Perhaps we should instead adopt a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for bigots: no one will inquire about whether you are a bigot, but you also can't go around expressing bigotry. If your bigotry is discovered, you're discharged. I'd much rather have a bigot-free military than a gay-free military, and I'd rather serve in bigot-free military than in a gay-free military. If I had kept up with my own studies of Arabic I might conceivably have the sorts of skills the military is looking for, but I'd be reluctant to serve in an organization that kicks out even more qualified people simply because of their sexual orientation.
At the same time, though, I'm not so far gone as Paul Cameron because if the choice is between dying in a terrorist attack and having bigots in the military, I'd reluctantly go with having bigots in the military. Keep in mind that the choice Paul Cameron is making is not simply to die in a terrorist attack himself, but for others to die as well. It's unlikely that he specifically would be singled out my Islamic extremists, so Cameron's attitude is that all our lives should be put at risk simply to protect Christians like him from feeling uncomfortable over the presence of gays nearby.
How many homophobes who have a problem with being "ogled" by gay men have also objected to the same degree when women are "ogled" by heterosexual men? Not many, in my experience, and those who object to gays in the military on the basis of such behavior do not raise strong public objections to the problems faced by women in the military. On the contrary, they are much more likely to argue that women shouldn't be in the military in the first place.
It's things like this which help reveal that deep connections between anti-gay animus on the one hand and patriarchy, misogyny, and maintaining a strict separation between "strong masculinity" and "weak femininity" on the other hand. Among the unstated reasons for anti-gay animus are how they undermine traditional Christian notions of masculinity and femininity, how they undermine traditional Christian notions of male and female roles, and so forth.
I did a program on tolerance/intolerance for AE. I had to use definitions and give those definitions right up front. When it came to ‘bigot’ I used a general definition of “one who is utterly intolerant.” And “intolerant” was defined as “not tolerating.” And “tolerate” was defined as, “to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.”
I find that many people use the term intolerant and bigot to mean anyone who dislikes some other group and says so. While it might be ugly to hear some of the prejudice and hateful things people can express. So long as they are voicing their opinions and not acting to suppress any person or group unfairly–if they give everyone equal status with regard to rights and laws–they are tolerant, regardless of what they feel or say or how they express themselves.
I once had someone write to the TV list to say something almost verbatim to: “I wouldn’t try and stop them, but I don’t tolerate it.”
That’s a nonsensical statement on its face. If he/she won’t try to stop X, then he/she _does_ tolerate it. He/She means to say, “but, I don’t like it.”
On the one hand, language is dynamic and organic. On the other hand, I do hate to see a blurring of lines due to disingenuousness. And I think some words, like bigot, intolerant, even militant (as has been called out at this blog on multiple occasions), are used sometimes to make a person look worse than they are.
The example you use is a fair example:
“A person who would rather see their company fail than employ highly qualified Jews is far more anti-Semitic than someone who doesn’t care.”
In other words, it reflects unfair _treatment_, which is a far cry from simply not liking someone personally. I have often worked side-by-side with people I dislike. And I have also known people I have to admit are highly competent in their work who I dislike personally.
It’s unrealistic to think that all people will like all other people. From a purely individual perspective, I really have a hard time hammering someone for how they “feel” about someone else. I can even admit I’ve had the experience of disliking some people who have never done anything negative to me. I certainly hope I wouldn’t treat them unfairly or try to hinder them from seeking happiness in their own lives or from pursuing opportunities they are entitled to pursue.
But sometimes we just don’t have conscious understanding or control of what–or who–we like/dislike. We do, however, have control over how we behave toward them. And when we translate our own personal prejudices into manifest treatment, we invite fair opposition to our actions. As you point out:
“…if Paul Cameron is made uncomfortable by the presence of a gay man, it’s the gay man who should be expected to leave…”
Our feelings about things tell us zero about the external reality. When a person tells me how they feel, they are giving me information about one thing only: themselves.
How Paul feels about gay people tells me _nothing_ about gay people. But it does tell me something about Paul. In fact, the more Paul expresses how he feels, the more I learn about Paul–but I still learn nothing about gays.
Often people make the error of thinking that how they feel is derived from external reality. But in reality how we feel is nothing but internal response to external reality that is derived purely from within _us_. Whether it’s subject to the will or not, it’s derived from within us–either from our conscious or unconscious mind.
This is very much engrained in religious people who are taught that feelings are induced by divine entities or demons. Jung talked about unconscious motives and how they seem to come from someone/somewhere else, because we aren’t “conscious” of where they come from. (Otherwise, it wouldn’t be unconscious). That’s why dreams are/were often held to be sacred. Few of us control our dreams. We lose consciousness, and then a story/images are revealed to us, as if from someone/somewhere else. I might have something surprise me in my dream. How–if the dream comes from my own mind–did I not know there would be a monster behind that door? For all intents and purposes–as it affects us–the subconscious might as well be some external entity. But it’s not.
Still, it’s easy to see how that mistake can be made. So, for someone like Paul, when you ask “Why is that?” That’s why. How he feels about gays isn’t coming from “him” (his conscious mind)–so it must be the gay that is causing these feelings in Paul.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tracieh. Great stuff.
Great post Austin, and great comments on an unusual article.
Austin,
Very nice editorial. I hadn’t thought about a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for bigots, and but now that I read it from you, it seems so obvious.
Thanks,