QuoteIt was an impromptu remark made awarely in the context of gormacha's comment, "That begs a number of tasteless jokes which clearly I'm above."Originally Posted by geysir
There's a context for humour, any humour, even the blackest of black humour.
Is there a context for what passes for typical so called gay humour/innuendoes/double meaning, in a thread which is discussing homophobia in football? There probably can be, but I don't see any example of it in this thread, just typical adolescent, embarrassing, out of context attempts at humour.
The thread moves from some interesting discussion of homophobia in football, to 'why are you not laughing at this great sexist type humour?'
Maybe when we are discussing racism in football, we can have a few racist type jokes in there to break up the monotony of discussion, jokes that some of my African friends would find funny.
It was an impromptu remark made awarely in the context of gormacha's comment, "That begs a number of tasteless jokes which clearly I'm above."
I'd say he was referring to my crass and vile post.
"FA provides clubs with 'toolkit' to tackle homophobia": http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21578347
Here's the toolkit: http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/T...nal-clubs.ashxThe Football Association has stepped up efforts to fight homophobia in football by providing clubs with a toolkit.
The resource has been sent to the 92 clubs of the Premier League and Football League and other teams as part of the Football v Homophobia campaign.
The 43-page document carries advice on how to create good relations with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
West Ham have supported the campaign ahead of the match against Tottenham.
The players wore Football v Homophobia T-shirts in the lead-up to Monday's encounter at Upton Park.
Hammers captain Kevin Nolan said: "It's important that we, as a club and as a squad, support the Football v Homophobia campaign.
"We're role models and we've got to ensure that we respect all members of society and show that we're open minded.
"If someone told me, or any of the lads, that they were gay, it wouldn't change our view of them one iota and that's the only way it can be, so it's a vital message to push."
did they have to call it a toolkit?
(sorry Geysir)
How do you change society? As much as we'd like to think (believe, fool ourselves) that racism has gone away from England, or Ireland, what goes on in private still exists and the public retribution from peers keeps a lid on things. Swear words with their base in sexuality are commonplace, same with being settled or non-settled Irish (or settled with a family history of being non-settled but own the t-shirt). So why would someone who is homosexual want to take the chance of hearing the nonsense from the crowd. Peer pressure keeps a lid on racism, I'm 100% sure of it, someone makes a monkey chant in Oriel at a black player and he'd get a slap, bojjocked out of it and made leave (by choice or without). It would need the same reaction, with police enforcement of "hate speech" laws to make it more comfortable for someone with a different lifestyle choice. When I'm sitting amongst the "real fans" at Luzhniki and they start making monkey noises and using colour-specific swear words at an opponent (completely blind to the fact that they've a trio of coloured players in their own starting 11) and it begins with a couple of idiots and grows to a few hundred, accompanied with self-satisfied sniggers (I'm aware of the possible pun and it's unintentional). Peer pressure will keep a lid on it, no public campaigns or other money wasting exercises.
I think you're quite right, and I shouldn't have triggered the thread taking that direction, even though my comment was largely harmless, but I do accept it opened the door.
Well, that's a huge question, on which there is a voluminous literature. But one aspect of such change is that we start to make certain public actions and utterances unacceptable.
That can be done with public campaigns. In fact, I'm not sure there has ever been a successful change in public mores without such campaigns, whether organised by institutional forces in civil society; governments; or social movements. The Justin Campaign http://www.thejustincampaign.com/ in the UK does fantastic work iin this area, and it needs to become as routine as the "Kick Racism Out Of Football" campaign was.
Of course, all campaigns have their shortcomings. Many black players bemoan the fact that the Kick Racism campaign has become a cosy way of clubs and fans paying lip service to anti-racism whilst really doing very little. However, the fact that that campaign has its shortcomings shouldn't preclude us from trying other campaigns and making a better job of it. In the case of Kick Racism Out, whilst the situation is still shocking, to suggest it has had no impact is, in my view, a fallacy, but then again, I'm not black.
It may be difficult, or indeed impossible, to stand up as an individual at a match and call someone out on the basis of a homophobic comment (for one, I'd be worried about getting a kicking), but where we can challenge, we should challenge. Whilst a very modest, indeed perhaps almost insignificant, contribution, discussions like this one are helpful (and which is also why I regret my off the cuff remark earlier in the thread).
You can also take your point of view into arenas where it is much more likely to be heard and, crucially, where it is very difficult for others to challenge you because people know its the right thing to do. For example, I coach an u14 team. Their language can be rather choice, to say the least, at the best of times. I have drummed into them for years that they can swear as much as they want, but they can't swear at anyone, nor can they use descriptions of character or physical appearance to abuse anyone. I come down hard on any breach of this. Calling someone "gay" as a term of abuse is just one of the things I simply don't allow. I also don't allow it to be used as a term to describe something useless, which seems to be a bit of a thing these days ("that's gay"). And, as a coach, I have the power to do this. It might not make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things, but it is something.
Last edited by gormacha; 27/02/2013 at 8:48 AM. Reason: typo
Not at all. Don't hold yourself responsible for the posts of others, including my own. I thought there was context for an "immature" gag that in no way reflected any actual sentiment I hold and made it; I'm entirely responsible for what I post whether you contributed to the context or not. Not everyone found it and the path the thread subsequently took amusing; so be it. That's the nature of (attempting) parody/satire/humour.
As Simon Amstell (openly gay and of Jewish descent) once said of Katy Perry's hit single 'Ur So Gay', "if you think that's homophobic, you should just Jew off and stop being so bloody black about it!"
For sure Danny, there's a humourless pc element on Foot.ie ready to jump on your back, needing the least provocation, damn them!
Morgan Freeman, on the topic said
I'd regard 'homophobia' as an umbrella term and not just a phobia, as such.
Institutionalised prejudice towards gays is on the wane, one indication is that one country after another, legalising or about to legalise same sex marriages. There would be some people who have no overt prejudice towards gays but still might wonder what difference does it make if it's a legal civil union or a legal civil marriage, why make the bother?
In football you can say that for the most part, a black player can play without having to disguise his skin colour, in order to avoid abuse. The same can not be said for gay footballers, mostly based on speculation and assumptions because there are so few examples to go on.
Homophobia is beginning to be tail ended to campaigns to kick out the remnants of racism left (or bubbling under) in football.
It's a start to equate both together as in 'give racism and homophobia the red card'.
An umbrella term for what exactly? Bigotry based on one's gender and sexual preferences? The word has assumed a different meaning from it's original and literal meaning as a fear of homosexuality* and now encompasses antipathy, prejudice and hatred towards bi/homosexuals. That's how I, and most people now, would interpret the word, I'd imagine.
*In fact, in its original form, "homophobia" referred to a heterosexual man's fear that others might think he was gay.
It was in September of 1965, while preparing an invited speech for the East Coast Homophile Organizations (ECHO) banquet, that [George] Weinberg hit upon the idea that would develop into homophobia. In an interview, he told me he was reflecting on the fact that many heterosexual psychoanalysts evinced strongly negative personal reactions to being around a homosexual in a nonclinical setting. It occurred to him that these reactions could be described as a phobia:
“I coined the word homophobia to mean it was a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.”
Weinberg eventually discussed his idea with his friends Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke, gay activists who would be the first to use homophobia in an English language publication. They wrote a weekly column on gay topics in Screw magazine, a raunchy tabloid otherwise oriented to heterosexual men. In their May 23, 1969, column—to which Screw’s publisher, Al Goldstein, attached the headline “He-Man Horse ****”—Nichols and Clarke used homophobia to refer to heterosexuals’ fears that others might think they are homosexual. Such fear, they wrote, limited men’s experiences by declaring off limits such “sissified” things as poetry, art, movement, and touching. Although that was the first printed occurrence of homophobia, Nichols told me emphatically that George Weinberg originated the term.Certainly, it's symbolically crucial, just as the equality of rights are paramount.There would be some people who have no overt prejudice towards gays but still might wonder what difference does it make if it's a legal civil union or a legal civil marriage, why make the bother?
Not sure what you mean here exactly. Do you mean a black player cannot hide his perceived faulty characteristic - that being his race/his ethnicity/the colour of his skin, as far as racists are concerned - and so we can gauge how prevalent racism actually is because the target and subsequent abuse are visible, whereas gay players conceal their sexual identity in order to avoid abuse, and do avoid potential abuse by doing so, so it's more difficult to gauge just how significant a problem homophobia might be on the terraces/in football because we've yet to see just how problematic it could be?In football you can say that for the most part, a black player can play without having to disguise his skin colour, in order to avoid abuse. The same can not be said for gay footballers, mostly based on speculation and assumptions because there are so few examples to go on.
It's a start, sure, but is it to institutionally subordinate or patronise it? Is that a good thing? The "bumper-sticker politics" of the Kick It Out campaign are on the receiving end of a fair amount of criticism as it is for their perceived mere paying of lip-service without genuine action. Is it helpful to add another sticker under that or another catchy slogan on the t-shirt so people can feel good about "contributing" to something that isn't really all that meaningful? Does such a casual approach trivialise the issue and unwittingly enable bigoted thought to sustain itself as people carelessly assume they're doing enough to combat it when the reality is little is being done at all, or the issue is at best being sidelined in terms of importance relevant to other issues in football? Homophobia isn't an off-shoot of racist thought. It is distinct; a severe enough problem in its own right and deserves to be treated as such rather than tagged onto the tail-end of other campaigns, as if it were a footnote of sorts; "Oh, and don't forget about that darned homophobia either; it's kind of nasty too, y'know!" Perhaps such a strategy is necessary as a kick-homophobia-out campaign in its own right wouldn't be taken as seriously as a kick-racism-out campaign by football fans, which would be a sad reflection if so.Homophobia is beginning to be tail ended to campaigns to kick out the remnants of racism left (or bubbling under) in football.
It's a start to equate both together as in 'give racism and homophobia the red card'.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 28/02/2013 at 9:07 AM.
If I was to be exact, I would be writing very long posts. I think you have understood what I mean about homophobia being an umbrella term, for all sorts of ... well ..... homophobia.
Pretty much.Not sure what you mean here exactly. Do you mean a black player cannot hide his perceived faulty characteristic - that being his race/his ethnicity/the colour of his skin, as far as racists are concerned - and so we can gauge how prevalent racism actually is because the target and subsequent abuse are visible, whereas gay players conceal their sexual identity in order to avoid abuse, and do avoid potential abuse by doing so, so it's more difficult to gauge just how significant a problem homophobia might be on the terraces/in football because we've yet to see just how problematic it could be?
The GAA currently have some proposal up for a vote at their next AGM, a rule change affecting the minimum penalty for someone found guilty of sectarian or racist abuse on the pitch. Considering the issue of homophobia came up with Donal Cusack and the general favourable sentiment expressed towards Donal, I think an opportunity has been missed to tag along 'homophobia' with racism and sectarianism. I would not see that tagging along as a token gesture, but a start.It's a start, sure, but is it to institutionally subordinate or patronise it? Is that a good thing? The "bumper-sticker politics" of the Kick It Out campaign are on the receiving end of a fair amount of criticism as it is for their perceived mere paying of lip-service without genuine action. Is it helpful to add another sticker under that or another catchy slogan on the t-shirt so people can feel good about "contributing" to something that isn't really all that meaningful? Does such a casual approach trivialise the issue and unwittingly enable bigoted thought to sustain itself as people carelessly assume they're doing enough to combat it when the reality is little is being done at all, or the issue is at best being sidelined in terms of importance relevant to other issues in football? Homophobia isn't an off-shoot of racist thought. It is distinct; a severe enough problem in its own right and deserves to be treated as such rather than tagged onto the tail-end of other campaigns, as if it were a footnote of sorts; "Oh, and don't forget about that darned homophobia either; it's kind of nasty too, y'know!" Perhaps such a strategy is necessary as a kick-homophobia-out campaign in its own right wouldn't be taken as seriously as a kick-racism-out campaign by football fans, which would be a sad reflection if so.
It would give equality, equating homophobia on a similar level to racism and sectarianism.
Football can only do so much.
No they don't! They ruled it out of order, on the basis that it was to do with a playing rule, and that it couldn't be dealt with until 2015. But they can introduce Hawkeye, which isn't a Playing rule supposedly, even though Hawkeye will be used to adjudicate points of play.
Go figure.
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
I think you are referring to one of the motions put forward, the Wexford one, about racial abuse on the pitch becoming a red card offence, however the rule that exists can't come up for review until 2015.
But the motion I refer to is going ahead, a minimum penalty (of 8 weeks?) for a player found guilty of racial or sectarian abuse on the pitch.
I'm sure that won't effect the Kerry footballers but I suspect Donaghy is going to have a hard time with the black card sin binning motion for players who remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a match official.
It's in motion 54:
http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/...13-Motions.pdf
I could have sworn I saw mention of homophobia in it when I read the motions last night.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
It's nice when the younger bucks pick up the gauntlet and do the research for their respected seniors.
I do recall reading some news article about the motion (not the motion text itself), where homophobia was mentioned along with racism and sectarian. Perhaps you would like to do a bit more research Bonnie?
I was also under the mistaken impression that homophobia was a part of the Congress motion.
Was mentioned here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/g...rs-221926.html
Croke Park-endorsed joint motion on discrimination including a proposal from the European County Board will be brought to next month’s Congress.
Like Wexford and Cavan, the European County Board put forward a motion pertaining to on-field acts of prejudice.
However, all were dismissed as they were deemed changes to playing rules, which are only up for discussion every five years, the next time being 2015.
Under the Football Review Committee’s proposals, a player found by a referee to have used abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent will be issued with a black card.
However, the proposed change to rule 1.12 of the GAA’s Official Guide will expand the parameters of what constitutes discrimination, which already covers racism and sectarianism, to include acts of a homophobic and anti-Traveller nature.
It is believed any player, official or spectator found to have made such comments or gestures will be deemed to have brought the GAA into disrepute and face stiffer penalties of anything up to a year’s suspension or expulsion from the organisation.
“Basically, it will be a motion that outlaws any abuse based on discriminatory principles,” said an insider.
Although based on motions such as Europe’s, the proposal is officially coming from the GAA’s national inclusion and integration committee and will be signed off by GAA director general Páraic Duffy.
Sectarian abuse will continue to be mentioned in the proposed rule change.
Last year, Armagh complained that a number of their players, including Ciarán McKeever, were subjected to sectarian taunting at their Division 1 game with Laois in O’Moore Park.
Last month, Kilcoo’s Aidan Brannigan was handed a four-month suspension for his involvement in a racist abuse incident involving Crossmaglen’s Aaron Cunningham in December’s Ulster club SFC final.
A Kilcoo club member was also banned from the GAA for life arising from the game.
Earlier this week, Cunningham’s father, Joey, revealed his son had been disappointed with the Ulster Council’s handling of the case.
I reckon that we may have been mislead by news reportage in this regard. I'm raging.It's nice when the younger bucks pick up the gauntlet and do the research for their respected seniors.
I do recall reading some news article about the motion (not the motion text itself), where homophobia was mentioned along with racism and sectarian. Perhaps you would like to do a bit more research Bonnie?
I was also under the mistaken impression that homophobia was a part of the Congress motion.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Maybe we were not far off after all
Any conduct by deed, word, or gesture of sectarian or racist nature or which is contrary to the principles of inclusion and diversity against a player, official, spectator or anyone else, in the course of
activities organized by the Association, shall be deemed to have discredited the Association.”
One could make a case that homophobia fits under the bit in bold.
It's an umbrella clause (sorry
I was thinking that myself incidentally when I wrote my last post.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks